Man Made Global Warming Disproved

Joanne Nova and Anthony Cox

The theory that failed

It takes only one experiment to disprove a theory. The climate models are predicting a global disaster, but the empirical evidence disagrees. The theory of catastrophic man-made global warming has been tested from many independent angles.

The heat is missing from oceans; it’s missing from the upper troposphere. The clouds are not behaving as predicted. The models can’t predict the short term, the regional, or the long term. They don’t predict the past. How could they predict the future?

The models didn’t correctly predict changes in outgoing radiation, or the humidity and temperature trends of the upper troposphere. The single most important fact, dominating everything else, is that the ocean heat content has barely increased since 2003 (and quite possibly decreased) counter to the simulations. In a best case scenario, any increase reported is not enough. Models can’t predict local and regional patterns or seasonal effects, yet modelers add up all the erroneous micro-estimates and claim to produce an accurate macro global forecast. Most of the warming happened in a step change in 1977, yet CO2 has been rising annually.

Observations from every angle point to a similar conclusion

Studies involving 28 million weather balloons, thousands of satellite recordings, 3,000 ocean buoys, temperature recordings from 50 sites in the US and a 1,000 years of temperature proxies suggest that the Global Climate Models overestimate positive feedback and are based on poor assumptions. Observations suggest lower values for climate sensitivity whether we study long-term humidity, upper tropospheric temperature trends, outgoing long wave radiation, cloud cover changes, or the changes in the heat content of the vast oceans.

Continued faith in flawed models breaks central tenets of science

The two things which make science different from religion are that nothing in science is sacred, and everything in science must ultimately fit with observations of the real world. While a theory may never be 100% proven, it can be disproven. The pieces of the climate jigsaw are coming together. The observations suggest that the warming effect of man-made emissions of CO2 has been exaggerated by a factor of 3 – 7 in computer simulations.

The direct effect of CO2 is only 1.2C

The IPCC estimates that carbon dioxide’s direct effect is 1.2 °C1 of warming (that is, before feedbacks are taken into account) for each doubling of the carbon dioxide level. Models amplify that warming with assumptions about positive feedback (see the blue region of model estimates in the graph below). But observations show that net feedback is probably negative, which would instead reduce the direct effect of the extra carbon dioxide.

While independent scientists point to the empirical evidence, government funded scientists argue that a majority of scientists, a consensus, support the theory that a man-made catastrophe is coming.2 This is plainly unscientific and a logical fallacy. The test of scientific knowledge is through experiment and observation. The only evidence the government scientists provide on the key points of attribution (the cause of the warming) come from simulations of the climate done with computers. Those models are unverified, and when tested, have “no skill” at predicting the climate. Scientists may claim otherwise, but no single model is proficient, rather a selection of models has “success” with a few parameters.

A multitude of observations are in rough agreement that any increase in global average temperature caused by a doubling of CO2 is more likely to be about half a degree than the 3.3 degrees determined by the IPCC3.

The major problem for models: Feedbacks

Our climate changes because of outside effects, called forcings: the sun grows brighter, or its magnetic field changes, ocean currents shift, vegetation changes, or continents move. The Earth is a ball of magma, is a 12,000 km thick, with a thin crust about 12 km of rock on top, who knows what effects come from within? The IPCC recognizes only two types of forcings: greenhouse gases and solar luminosity.

Forcings are difficult to unravel. Harder still are feedbacks, as systems all over the planet simultaneously adjust to changing conditions. In a warmer world, for instance, less ice and more plant-life means less sunlight is reflected to space, which creates more warming. The oceans release carbon dioxide, more water evaporates, humidity changes, sea-levels rise, and all of those consequent changes further affect temperatures.

The feedbacks are not just icing on the cake, but in the IPCC’s view, collectively more powerful than any forcing due directly to CO2. Indeed while CO2 may cause one degree of warming, the feedbacks amplify this – theoretically anyway – by up to three degrees. The major agent of feedback, according to the IPCC, is water vapor (ie. humidity).4 The IPCC could be right about one hundred factors, but if they are using the wrong assumptions about the way clouds and humidity behave, the forecast of an alarming three degrees could be reduced to a forecast of a mere half-a-degree. Some details matter more than others.

Not only is it hard to put a value on all the feedbacks, it’s difficult to know if some changes are a feedback or a forcing5 or even both at once — for example, clouds. Clouds’ impact on climate would obviously change as the world warms (a feedback) but, if solar-magnetic effects change clouds, as now seems likely, clouds could also drive climate change (a forcing).6, 7

The references here independently show that core model assumptions are wrong. Models assume that relative humidity will stay the same over the tropics as the world warms, that clouds are a positive feedback and not a negative one, and that cloud changes are a feedback and not a forcing in their own right. These are three critical and demonstrable errors.

Conclusion

Every which way we measure it, the models predictions don’t match the observations.

The warming we’ve had in the last thirty years implies that at best, we could expect 1°C from a doubling of CO2, but observations from eight natural experiments around the globe, and even on Mars and Venus suggest that 0.4°C is the upper bound of climate sensitivity to any cause. In addition, if Miscolscki is right, and an increase in carbon dioxide leads to a decrease in water vapor, then the sensitivity due to CO2 could be close to zero.

The global warming predictions are contradicted by the data. The vast funding which is now being directed to ‘solving’ global warming should be redirected to researching hypotheses which are consistent with empirical data and confirmed by observable evidence.

The exception proves that the rule is wrong. That is the principle of science. If there is an exception to any rule, and if it can be proved by observation, that rule is wrong.

551 comments to Man Made Global Warming Disproved

I am beginning to wonder if even the UN has tired of finessing a Gobal Government via the AGW scare & are now licking their lips at the possible role they can play with the possible collapse of the EU & global economic turmoil.

They would not be backwards coming fowards with Tobin Tax proposals for the globe to “create a stabilization fund” & a global tax would make a global government.

I have never been happy with the continued concession made about doubling of CO2.

Statements that are aimed at defusing the Amplification theory concede that doubling CO2 will lead to 1.2 C deg increase.

I am not at all sure that this is correct and it certainly hasn’t been tested empirically.

It may also be taken to mean that after the first doubling you can “double up again” and get another 1.2 C.

The asymptotic reduction in temperature gain for each doubling says that it won’t ever be 1.2C again but something much smaller.

There is also the issue that is continually pushed that man made CO2 is responsible for the overall increase in atmospheric CO2 when the natural component of atmospheric CO2 is 97% of total.

This begs the question as to how mankind could ever hope to be the cause of a “doubling” of CO2 in the first place.

If there ever was a doubling it would logically come from some natural source and be beyond human control.

If there was any real need to stop a doubling then a thinking person would buy shares in cement companies because we are going to need a lot of very big plugs to stop CO2 from venting from volcanoes and undersea ocean floor vents.

The whole business is inherently unstable, nutty science and I’m not sure that the idea of 2 >< CO2 = 1.2 C. is at all correct or useful.

There are other more technical issues relating to gas laws that are probably more relevant but from a very simplistic view the doubling meme should be left alone as an idea that has had it's day.

The (heat) energy generated by absorption of light passing through a gas depends on the wavelenth of the light as well as its intensity. Spectroscopy 101. Therefore, a doubling of CO2 concentration under UV light of say 0.35 microns will not create the same effect as the absorption of IR light at say 35 microns. There are different populations of molecules able to participate at different wavelengths, because of the nature of the physics (not much to do with climate-induced mechanisms).
It is overly simplistic to talk of a doubling of CO2 in the global atmosphere. Indeed, it’s kindergarten simplification. The real picture is ever so much more complex and gives rise to science topics like spectroscopy because of the grouping of particulate properties, be they atoms or molecules, allowed states, transitions between them, coupling, types of molecular motion (bending, rotations and the like). It’s 45 years since I studied the theory of this, so minor E&OE please.

John Kehr showed that even with a doubling of CO2 and postulated warming from it is easily negated by the over all outflow increase to space as shown HERE:

Excerpt:

It can also be used to compare entire years against each other. I will pick 1984 and 2009 to show that the same result applies over the course of a year. 1984 is a good year for that since it had a temperature anomaly very close to 0.0 °C for most measurements. As a result that would also be a year that should have an almost zero anomaly for the amount of energy that the Earth lost to space.

(Chart shown in the link)

A 0.5 °C temperature difference between these two years resulted in an additional 2.5 W/m2 increase in the measured amount of energy lost to space. That increase in energy loss is not theoretical, it is a measured difference. It is also what is predicted by the Stefan-Boltmann Law.

If the Earth were to warm by 1.1 °C, the amount of energy lost would be almost 4 W/m2 greater than what it lost in 1984. If the Earth were to warm by 3.0 °C which is what is predicted by a doubling of CO2, then the amount of energy lost would be > 10 W/m2 the energy loss that existed in 1984.

The increase in outgoing Long Wave Radiation (OLW) easily outstrip any increase in the CO2 warm forcing power.

He also made a more recent post about the insignificance of CO2 as a GHG:

I have never been happy with the continued concession made about doubling of CO2.

Look at it this way, Kinky. We should admit that the logarithmic effect of CO2 is within the realm of “settled science” so that we can have a common ground for debate on the larger, unsettled scientific questions, such as whether overall water vapour feedback is negative once clouds are factored in, because that’s where the real weakness in CAGW lies.

It’s about staying on topic. We should deny the Warmists the opportunity to engage in stawmen beat ups to avoid the real issues. How many times has the “Skeptics-Who-Deny-that-CO2-is-Warming-the-Planet” strawman been trotted out to obscure the real issues in the climate debate?

To say that the logarithmic effect of CO2 is “settled science” is to concede nothing, because science is not a faith.

We’re not saying that we “believe” in the logarithmic effect, only that it appears to be “a hypothesis which is yielding useful, and otherwise unexpected, results.” Therefore, it is a working hypothesis. It might be wrong, true. If further research reveals evidence that the logarithmic effect of CO2 is modified by some factor, one would hope we will quickly modify the hypothesis to better represent empirical reality.

Meanwhile, the logarithmic effect of CO2 is excellent “concession” to make in the rhetorical sense, since it concedes the obvious state of our knowledge about the effects of CO2, while at the same time providing us with the solid argument that even if we double atmospheric CO2 levels from 400ppm to 800 ppm over the next 100 years the largest amount of warming possible –assuming all else remains the same and Gaia has no homeostasis negative feedback systems which tend to moderate any runaway trends — is 1.2c.

1.2c of climate evolution over a century is not catastrophic and is well within the envelope of natural variation seen over the last few thousand years. Game over.

Even worse for the Warmist Faith, to achieve “dangerous” warming of, say, 2.4c+ will require CO2 levels at 1600- 3200 ppm. At today’s rate of economic growth based upon fossil fuels that would take more than 400 years to achieve. Who really believes that in even 25 years time our economy will still be at today’s level of technological development, much less centuries from now?

So let the Warmists have 1.2c per doubling of CO2 as settled science.

The IPPC has long conceded that catastrophic AGW is impossible without some further unknown, unobserved and unmeasured magick mystery forcing to amplify the warming effect of CO2. Their blind faith in their flawed gospel has set a logical trap from which they can not escape. Their whole argument is based upon the counterintuitive assumption that clouds and snow dramatically amplify warrming. That the most complex nonlinear system on the planet has a built-in runaway feedback mechanism based on the common and important molecules of H2O and CO2. Yet somehow, mysteriously, the climate remained within an envelope that allowed human intelligence (or lack thereof) to evolve to the point where we can have this debate.

But if you wish to argue whether CO2 can cause warming or whether humanity is a source of CO2, I’m sure you find heaps of warmists pleased to debate anything, ANYTHING, but the obvious failings in the CAGW hypothesis.

I think if you read my comment above, the part about “asymptotic” you will see I am using the logarithmic concept and recognise it as a real part of the science and that there is a physical basis behind it.

I can’t identify any physical basis behind the idea that .

As a number of people have pointed out above the concept of doubling is not clearly defined and is not actually all that scientific.

Look at it this way, Kinky. We should admit that the logarithmic effect of CO2 is within the realm of “settled science”…

Virtually every indepndent spectroscopic chemist will vehemently disagree with that statement. “Greenhouse” gases are as invalid as phlogiston.

Arrhenius in the late 1890s incorrectly assumed that CO2 molecules act as simple lumps of matter absorbing and storing solar energy as heat. This falsehood was totally discredited in the early 20th century when science discovered the true nature of atomic structure.

It wasn’t until the 1960s that environmental activists dug up and re-animated the nonsensical Greenhouse Gas hypothesis. One of thee main reasons why they succeeded was because Arrhenius was a very famous chemist (specialising in elctrochemistry).

Great post Joe + Anthony. But let me add just a note of caution.
Very rarely do scientific theories get tested and discarded
after experimental results, despite what you learn in school.
Experimental tests are good at fixing parameter values within
a theory, but by themselves they are not powerful enough to lead
to a rejection of a theory or complex model. There is always
wiggle room for adding additional parameters to a theory, that
makes it consistent with the new data. In other words, complex
theories never “fail”. An old theory gets abandoned slowly,
over a generation or two, when it gets weighed down so much
by this addition of new parameters that it becomes no longer
competitive against newer, more streamlined theories. But even
during this replacement process, you will never find supporters
of the old theory accepting that the new one is better. You will
just find a slow collective shift, with new students and postdocs
taking up the new theory, because it shows more promise, and fewer
and older people sticking with the old model. The speed of this
generational change is greatly affected by psychological and social
factors that contribute to make a theory more or less “attractive”
to the new generations of researchers. For example, evolutionary
theories in biology where technically superior to creationist
models, but they had to overcome the social and religious bias
in favour of a creationist narrative.

This is where things get sticky with AGW. Even if you prove that
experimental data are more simply explained by non-CO2 models, you need
to overcome the social and political bias that makes the alternative
theory more fashionable to the new generation of researchers.
That social bias can be stronger than the data themselves.
The bias has two components. There is a bottom-up factor, meaning
that almost all the new students who go into climate studies these days
are motivated by a desire to “save the world” from evil humans
rather than to be critical, skeptical or uncommitted observers.
And there is a top-down factor, meaning that professors and funding
institutions will only promote or give grants to researchers who stick
to the AGW theory. I may be too pessimistic, but based on the history
of my science field, this one will be a long fight, it will take decades
of non-warming before the evidence of the data becomes heavier
than the political bias in the eyes of the average new student.

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
— Max Planck
Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers, trans. F. Gaynor (1950), 33.

The global warming scare is all about activism, and nothing to do with accurate science.

Activists are people who feel the need to be players in a big drama, and dramas don’t get any bigger than ‘the future of the planet’.

The scare will continue until we as societies get past this ghastly epidemic of narcissism, where big egos stuffed full of false self-esteem club together to try to feel important by lording it over the despised remainder of society which does not share their emotional inadequacies.

One attribute you will never see in the ‘consensus science’ practitioners: humility.

When you put it like that, it is pretty obvious that self-righteous elitism powered by a sense of entitlement to rule and a blind faith in dogma has always been and will always be a powerful factor in any advanced human society.

The “global warming scare” will never be defeated in the sense that it is already beginning to silently slime away, shape shifting into the next millenarian sanctimony.

No one will ever apologise for being wrong about CAGW. The ABC will seamlessly shift onward to the next great piety for which we should surrender our autonomy as thinking individuals to the same old intellectual elite with the same regressive statist solutions to everything — collectivism, group think, more intrusive government regulation, higher taxes and ultimately serfdom for the little people.

I suppose that’s why the fight to be free–free to think, free to speak, free to offend orthodoxy, free to trade in open and fair markets and the freedom to own property without the state confiscation, is a fight that has to be fought by every generation on different fronts. Sometimes, as in our grandparents’ generation, the forces that wish to enslave us are self-evident and foreign, ie the Nazi and Imperial Japan.

But just as often the fight for continued individual civil liberty has to be conducted at home in parliament, on the streets, in our schools and in our insidiously creeping institutional machines. My hope is for the electoral process to work to throw the bastards out. However, we are approaching the stage where our institutions of government, learning, state-controlled media and research are so powerfully entrenched as to be beyond the reach of the normal democratic process. It is possible that some kind of, dare I say, “revolution” will be needed to purge our burgeoning technocracy of tenured dogmatists and kleptocrats.

The truth is that we have won the climate debate. No less a figure of statist orthodoxy than Robert Manne pronounced the “denialists” totally victorious in August. But we are losing our fight for liberty on so many other fronts.

For instance, what might be the most invidious aspect of the climate debate is that it represents the “scientification” of blind faith.

CAGW is but a single gospel in the bible of Green nature worship. Deep Green ecology is a scientology. An emerging secular religion that has cloaked itself in the language of science while eschewing the reason and methods of the scientific process. Of course, the Greens abhor empirical scientific methodology as a sexist rape of knowledge, but by appropriating the language of science to advance faith-based mythology they achieve two things: First, they appropriate the authority of science, which in the modern world is the official seal of all approved knowledge and secondly by debasing science in the service of myth, the Greens vandalise the cognitive process of rational inquiry. Stealing our society’s ability to think rationally about existence is a great benefit to the Green agenda which cannot withstand the scrutiny of rational analysis.

The process of degrading science into a state controlled pseudo-scientific faith has turned whole institutions into bastions of Lysenkoism where workers, researchers, teachers and bureaucrats toil in a climate of cultural terror and oppression, at least, for anyone who can still think outside the orthodox frame. Under such pressure, most workers simply stop thinking thoughts that threaten their careers and ultimately their ability to pay the mortgage.

The great danger is not that we, the people, aren’t willing to fight to be free, but that our generation is losing its personal and institutional ability to think rationally about reality. Our children are no longer taught HOW to think, but WHAT to think. We remain silent on the insidious creep of injustices we see our government, our councils, our mass media and our schools perpetuating because we aren’t “activists.” As a nation we are slowly slipping into a comfortably numb dementia.

Eventually — as the cognitive tools and methods we once used to form individual conclusions based upon rational evidence atrophy — the day will come when our grandchildren won’t even know what it is to think freely without referral to authority or how to express curiosity through a direct inquiry into nature. And at that point a new technological Green dark ages will have already ensued.

Well put. Really, the only drivers in the AGW tribe is a tax money exchange within a hermetically sealed closed loop of complicit activists/scientists/goraphobes, etc., and the hopes of control over the “despised remainder of society” through a world government tax scheme that would make Marx proud.

Most of the warming happened in a step change in 1977, yet CO2 has been rising annually.

I’ve always been curious about this. I’ve never really been able to find a paper or papers with theories on why this occured. Was it attributed to a step change in the Suns energy output or some other phenomena (maybe the 70′s energy crisis…)?

I have seen a lot of posts on WUWT from Dr. Leif Svalgaard (a world renowned solar scientist, apparently) though, and he doesn’t seem to give much credence to the sun-spot theory, if I understand him correctly.

In 1976, catalytic converters and other aerosol/particulate reduction measures were mandated on all new USA motor vehicles (which because of their integrated car industry means Canada as well). These controls reduced emissions by >90%, and quickly spread to the rest of the world.

The 1977 step change was due to reduced aerosol scattering and reduced aerosol seeded clouds, resulting in increased sunlight reaching the ground.

In 1976, catalytic converters and other aerosol/particulate reduction measures were mandated on all new USA motor vehicles (which because of their integrated car industry means Canada as well). These controls reduced emissions by >90%, and quickly spread to the rest of the world.

The 1977 step change was due to reduced aerosol scattering and reduced aerosol seeded clouds, resulting in increased sunlight reaching the ground.

I have an issue with this along the same lines of the AGW CO2 position. If humans contribute just 5% of all CO2 emmisions even back in ’76-77, then particulate emmisions from natural causes would similarly outway those that are man made. Interestingly both links provided by GregS and Cohenite make no reference to particulate emmisions. Do you have any references Phillip?

Agree. Only 30% of the earth’s surface is land. Of that only some countries mandated catalytic converters. Of those, the only places where the change could have made a measured difference to temperature (if at all), would be the cities. All spaces between the cities would read the same to two decimal places. The assumed impact of city smog in a country area is theoretical, but not measurable on a thermometer.

I can’t see a couple hundred point locations around the earth being the cause of such a large step change.

The resolution of the discrepancy demands that either the upper troposphere measurements are wrong, the surface measurements are wrong or both.

Anthony Watts (et al) currently have a paper in review that does in fact contain evidence that the Urban Heat Island Effect has exaggerated the amount of warming in the surface temperature measurements – refer New study shows half of the global warming in the USA is artificial If he is right about the U.S.A, then the surface measurements for the rest of the world should be questioned as well. It will be very interesting to see how this study turns out.

Greg, when my interest in the whole AGW thing grew in about 2007-8when individuals came out and made clearly false and misleading statements, I started to read issues affecting the science such as the UHI effect. I remember some academic from Melboourne Uni state in a radio interview that his post graduate student had done research on how tempreature affected the life cycle of the Bogon moth. As the student discovered that increased temperatures increases the rate of growth during the adolescent stages of its life, then that proved that global warming was man made. Case closed. I nearly crashed the car at that bit of logic.

I have seen references in passing to the step change in ’76-77, but until now have had little success in finding anything on it.

Probably not too much to do with catalytic converters – but much more to do with the ocean system, home of most of the mobile energy in the surface environment.

In 1976/77 the surface temperature of a vast area of the Pacific Ocean abruptly warmed by several degrees as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation shifted from ‘cool phase’ to ‘warm phase’. At the time, this abrupt shift was so significant in terms of its impact on North American (and Australian) climate and weather patterns, agriculture and fisheries that it earned the soubriquet ‘The Great Pacific Climate Shift’. There is a very large and diverse contemporary literature on the subject; this is a nice (2005) summary.

The effect of the shift is now summarised as “most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperature since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”. I suppose that must be due to the wisdom of coupled climate models.

The oceans are almost entirely responsible for changes in atmospheric temperature. This is because thermal mass of the oceans is vastly greater than the atmosphere. A mere 0.0005C ocean cooling will cause a 1C atmospheric warming.

You might be right Speedy, just to clarify, this site is here for the sole purpose of debunking the propaganda science that spews forth from the mouths of those that want power and control over us and they are ably abetted by the stupid.

The above post by Jo spells out the science as it stands today and i think we all agree based on this AGW is a joke, a con, a scam, voodoo science therefore there is nothing more to discuss. No argument can be made by the stupid in response so there (in theory) is no reason for this site to exist.

However as Speedy has pointed out the global supply of idiots is sustainable and therefore, unfortunately Jo has a full time job for many years to come

So if positive feedback is a figment of warmist dreams, as appears highly probable, precisely what suggests that negative feedback isn’t the the most likely factor that has maintained at least some measure of thermal equilibrium over the eons?

I’ve read quite a lot written by Gavin Schmidt, who is actually a very capable scientist, and he is clear on the subject of models. They are not theories. They do not produce predictions. At best they are instantiations of the opinions and views of the modellers.

The problem is that when the models get to the politicized IPCC they morph into science, as the real science is contradictory and uncertain.

The modellers should be saying, ‘Look guys, our models are just tools for understanding. Their outputs aren’t scientific predictions in any meaningful sense. You can’t base policy on them.’ But the modellers like the money, the fame, that everyone takes them seriously. So, they don’t.

Yes, models are just tools to help understand what might happen. We use them all the time. The weather forecasters run a whole suite of models, and go with the majority. Usually they do OK.

That there are problems with climate models does not mean that AGW isn’t a problem. For example the models used to predict arctic ice seem to have rather severely underestimated the rate of ice loss. There must be something wrong with those models. So the models needs to be looked at.

When you are faced with the very serious potential challenges of AGW, to just say that, “the models are wrong, so we don’t have to worry”, seems slightly cavalier.

That there are problems with climate models does not mean that AGW isn’t a problem. For example the models used to predict arctic ice seem to have rather severely underestimated the rate of ice loss.

I anticipated the Arctic being used because, after the plethora of predictions, it has become the last refuge for warmists. The desperate who huddle there need to dutifully ignore the other pole, the one experiencing record sea ice.

There must be something wrong with those models. So the models needs to be looked at.

Balderdash …. ignore the data ‘predictions’ of the models and look exclusively at the empirical data, what do you see now ? Oh, pretty much nothing. Clearly, the model data being the “opinion” of the modellers reflects precisely their ignorant opinion and not what is actually reflected by the empirical measurements. So, since when did the model “data” output become observed measurements in Nature ?

Insofar as the government weather “forecasters” are concerned, they don’t do very well. BoM in Brisbane are not much good at it; one can do much better by looking at the cloud formations and reading barometric pressure (trends) … much like any competent yachtsman did before the advent of satellite technology.

Just for the sake of comparison, I’ll tell what I know of storm water modelling.

The whole objective of creating a model in the first place is to identify a practical working standard which can be justified in a court of law.

Assumptions:
A 10 year storm event is meaningful. In reality, it is simply an expectation of reoccurrence. Therefore it has legal standing as having a meaningful risk value. A 10 year event does not mean much outside of legal risk.

Rainfall intensity. This is a value based on charts of rainfall patterns for the area. Its main purpose is to allow consistent, comparative and representative rainfall / runoff for the catchment in question. I don’t know how well it compares to real storm events.

Rainfall hyetograph. A set of rainfall intensity patterns for different rainfall durations.
It’s a model parameter which allows comparisons to be made. Real storm events will do as they please, they won’t each conform to the rainfall hyetograph. Only in a statistical why is the hyetograph meaningful.

Runoff coefficient. A guess at best by designers of how much of the rain that falls on the land actually comes off as run off. It varies with soil type, urbanisation, ground cover, and wet/dry season.

Time of concentration. This is the design duration of storm event. i.e.; a 20 minute storm, a 60 minute storm. Each catchment will be sensitive to a particular storm duration. Designers use the duration which generates the maximum peak flow.

That’s the overland stuff. The underground hydraulic modelling has a lot more assumptions. Still; the real flow seems consistent with the calculated model flow.

All this to say; the model is not accurate.
The model is comparative, and allows risk to be assessed. That’s about it.

Despite some folk establishing some time ago that the Earth was not made in seven days, there are still an awful lot of folk – and a lot of awful folk – who insist this is not true. And too many of those awful folk are prepared to separate heads from bodies to prove their point. All heresy therefore requires courage, as well as curiosity.

It should be self-evident that clouds have to provide a negative feedback, or there would be regular runaway ‘global warming’ events in the geological record. The problem, of course, for alarmists is that there is nothing in the geological record to show this has occurred.

I think we need to continually stress the difference between AGW and CAGW, which alarmists like to falsely merge into one subject.

The average sceptic believes AGW is real, but that it is only a mildly interesting phenomenon which is dwarfed by natural climate cycles. On the other hand, he or she believes CAGW is a complete crock, an example of bad science, without any foundation and a myth designed to perpetuate comfortable lifestyles of those involved in the Global Warming Industry, with the sad by-product of enforcing economic Armageddon on the rest on us.

As for the current period of warming since around 1850, it is clear this is just another one of those typical and brief (in geological terms) warming cycles experienced since the beginning of the Holocene around 10,000 years ago.

So while admitting, there probably is a very modest amount of AGW in the current warming cycle, it could just as easily have been caused by: i) the effects of the huge increase in global irrigation, ii) tiny changes in the sun’s radiation, and/or iii) the knock on effects of changes in the intensity and direction of ocean currents.

All too often we have seen in ‘climate science’, a common thread of having to manipulate (‘homogenising’) the data to fit the models. I, for one, am not sure how you can ever model something which is essentially chaotic. The old argument of: “If you can’t accurately forecast the weather a week ahead, how can you claim to accurately forecast climate 50 years in the future?” still stands, although though it has become a little tired from possibly too much use.

If CAGW was real, then there is one group who really understands ancient climates and who should be vehemently shouting out their total support. These are the experienced geologists in the private sector*, but finding one of these is like winning the lottery. It can happen, but it is very unlikely. I know a lot of geologists – I am one – and I know none who think CAGW is other than a half-baked theory without any supporting evidence.

* Note: Geologists in the public sector do not count, as they have been told what to think and there are employment consequences for not thinking ‘correctly’.

It should be self-evident that clouds have to provide a negative feedback, or there would be regular runaway ‘global warming’ events in the geological record. The problem, of course, for alarmists is that there is nothing in the geological record to show this has occurred.

I don’t understand. The only negative feedback you need to stop getting hotter and hotter is the T^4 term in the Stefan-Boltzmann formula for black body radiation. That is, as you get hotter, the rate at which you radiate heat increases dramatically.

In recent times (the last few million years at least), we’ve seen rather wild swings in temperature called ice ages that seem to indicate that there is a fair range of temperatures where the net feedback is positive, rather than negative. If you go back before the ice ages, the earth was ice free and a couple of degrees warmer than today. And you need to remember that the sun was weaker then. If you have faith in negative feedbacks preventing us moving again into an ice free world, perhaps you might like to explain why they didn’t work before?

I have to admit I have never read any article discussing variations in the Sun’s radiation over the past five or so million years. Lots on temperature of course, with lots of proxies to look at – but what is a good proxy for solar radiation? I don’t think there are any, but I stand to be corrected. While I was searching I came across this, which is a really good read, but an uncomfortable read if you are an alarmist:

So, returning to the subject: First of all, we were talking about negative feedbacks from clouds, not other types of feedbacks.

The tired old alarmist argument goes something like this: CO2 levels increase, which in turn increases temperature, which in turn means more evaporation, which in turn creates more clouds trapping the heat allowing less heat to be radiated off into space. Sounds logical, unless you give it half a minute’s thought. The tops of the new white fluffy clouds reflect most of the incoming radiation off back into space. Also, the increase in temperature, as caused in the alarmist theory, will increase the amount of energy radiated back into space. So yes, more CO2 means the global temperature will rise, but not by very much and certainly not enough to ever be worried about.

So let’s turn to the subject of what ends an Ice Age. Apart from one or two flagrantly fantasising alarmist papers, everyone agrees the temperature rise at that time always precedes an increase in CO2 levels. So it is not rising CO2 levels which end an Ice Age. The Earth warms up and animal and plant activity surges unlocking previously dormant carbon. The oceans warm up releasing small amounts of carbon dioxide, which also helps the warming process along a little. Anyhow, the bottom line is small variations in the eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit is generally recognised as being the principal reason for why ice ages come to an end.

So going back to the simplistic theory about increasing cloud cover being a major positive feedback. If the theory was correct, it is difficult to see how the process would stop – after all, increasing cloud cover reduces the Earth’s ability to radiate energy off into space. Increasing cloud cover causes rising temperatures, which in turn causes more evaporation and therefore more clouds and higher temperatures and so on, and so on. Eventually some kind of equilibrium would occur, but at temperatures which would make the IPCC forecasts look timid.

Negative feedbacks from increasing cloud cover is becoming the new heresy amongst alarmists; it has taken the place of natural climate hotels. Why? Because they both drive a big nail into the coffin of the CAGW argument.

Net increase in cloud cover = net cooling.
Homogenising chaos is just a cerebral statistical exercise.
JB asks: Why didn’t they work before?
Obvious answer is we still haven’t got all the answers, we still don’t understand the relationships between all the variables and most importantly, it was clearly NOT caused by human activity.

But we don’t have to go back millions of years to show that water vapour feedback must ultimately be negative. We can look to the well documented Medieval Warm Period (MWP), which was as warm or warmer than today…

If water vapour feedback was positive then due to the increased evaporation spurred on by the original warming in the MWP there should have ensued a period of elevated temperatures for thousands of years until the cooling of the Holocene as we dip into the next glacial period overwhelmed the positive water vapour forcing.

But that didn’t happen. The MWP quickly ended in a era of rapid climate change to lower temperatures. There were other previous shorted-lived warm periods in historical times before the WMP, such as the Roman Warm Period and the Minoan Warm Period. If water vapour feedback was positive they would never had ended.

One rational way to explain the short-lived nature of the MWP is to conclude that the water vapour the initial warming produced had a moderating, ie, negative feedback, on the warming. As the planet warms, increasing levels of water vapour in the atmosphere caused by higher evaporation levels form more clouds and snow increasing the albedo of the planet, reflecting heat back into space more efficiently, thus working to regulate the temperature downward.

The great simplicity of negative water vapour feedback on warming is that it is “symmetrical,” which is always a good sign that you might be on to a fundamental rule in nature, because natural systems usually have an elegant beauty that cut both ways.

Negative water vapour feedback is symmetrical in the sense that it also works to moderate cooling. For as the climate cools, for whatever reason, evaporation levels fall leading to fewer clouds, less snow cover and the albedo of the Earth decreases, thus absorbing more heat energy and warming the planet.

On the other hand, positive water vapour feedback would tend to force the climate system into runaway extreme states in both direction, reinforce warming when it warmed for whatever reason and amplify cooling as well.

It’s ironic that the Warmists, in insisting that water vapour has to amplify warming, are throwing the sage observations of their own great prophet, James Lovelock, under the proverbial bus.

For it was Lovelock’s Gaia Hypothesis which first popularised the idea that the biosphere is a massively complex nonlinear system that works to regulate many different subsystems towards a relatively narrow envelope of values necessary for the continuity of life on the planet through a tangle of negative feedbacks, in much the same way the human body maintains constant internal conditions necessary for life.

John Brooks should google “Daisyworld” to learn more about how long-lived complex systems can only exist due to a web of negative feedbacks which moderate cyclical tendencies to spin towards runaway catastrophic events.

Simply put, the greatest argument of all that water vapour feedback is negative is that we are here to argue about it!

If water vapour feedback was positive then due to the increased evaporation spurred on by the original warming in the MWP there should have ensued a period of elevated temperatures for thousands of years until the cooling of the Holocene as we dip into the next glacial period overwhelmed the positive water vapour forcing.

Firstly, a recent “skeptic” paper didn’t show any MWP. But lets not worry about that and say that there was one. The feedbacks amplify the effect of any forcing. If the forcing goes away, so do the feedbacks. In particular, any water vapour feedbacks go away pretty quickly. So I don’t see how it follows that “there should have ensued a period of elevated temperatures for thousands of years until the cooling of the Holocene”.

Since the early 70′s till the late 90′s the temp rose and you claim this was a by product of CO2 increases which as we all know means an increase in water vapour driving the temp rise (forget the fact that the radio sondes measure a drop in water vapour for the moment)the IPCC claim if left unchecked the water vapour will continue to rise and by 2100 the temp will have risen 6,7 or even 8 degrees. This is a +ve feed back once it starts it cannot stop because it feeds back on its self so the input keeps getting bigger ergo so does the out put.

So a valid question to ask would be “why have the temps stop rising?” the forcing is still present (CO2 levels still going up) so why has the feed back stop being +ve John.

Now i know you will not bother to answer because you are a sleazy slimey little troll full of deluded self importance, i am quite sure you where one of those idiots who marched in the streets demanding Labor apply a new tax (tax me more, tax me more) but i bet you are the first idiot to complain when your rego goes up.

So John if CO2 is increasing but water vapour is decreasing how can water vapour be a +ve feed back? IT CANNOT JOHN, IT CANNOT but alas you are too stupid to grasp this fundamental physical construct.

Of course, Warmist dogma must be that the Medieval Warm Period never happened, because otherwise modern warming is well within the historical envelope and needs no special one-off hypothesis to explain it. Warming since the bottom of the Little Ice Age in about 1830 has only been about 0.8c and that’s well within known natural variation. It could be all natural.

That’s why Michael Mann was heralded as a climate change hero when he sacrificed his career as a respectable scientist to create a bogus historical temperature reconstruction which deleted all past climate variation of the last 2,000 years so that modern warming would appear as an UNPRECEDENTED! hockeystick against a historical context of one long uninterrupted climate idyll.

So, yeah, Johnnie, to get all denialistic about the MWP and the LIA is one part delusional fantasy and two parts scientific fraud… let’s just say that the debate is over and the science is settled on the MWP…

The feedbacks amplify the effect of any forcing. If the forcing goes away, so do the feedbacks. In particular, any water vapour feedbacks go away pretty quickly. So I don’t see how it follows that “there should have ensued a period of elevated temperatures for thousands of years until the cooling of the Holocene”.

Crakar is spot on, Johnnie wants his cake and eat it too…

I’m just paraphrasing our brilliant $1,200 dollar-a-day Climate Commission, Timothy Flannery, on that thousand year number. That is how long he reckons it will take the climate to cool down once it warms up. Water vapour amplification is about 3 times greater than the CO2 warming effect according to the IPCC. That is what the bloody “tipping point” is all about. Once the climate system gets the warming perturbation or “bump” the original forcing agent can go away and the positive feedback loop will simply feed upon itself. That’s why the whole idea of positive feedbacks governing long-lived complex systems doesn’t pass the common sense test.

BTW, how come we know your church’s gospel better than you do? Or do you wish to shift the goal posts now that we’re at match point?

Nah Wes. Flannery says that it will take ~1000 years for warming due to CO2 to go away. Thats because its removed comparatively slowly from the atmosphere.

Crakar, the radiosondes measure a drop in water vapour do they. I think the actual amount of water in the atmosphere is rising.

And Wes, you don’t understand positive feedback. You have an equilibrium position. You add a forcing that should move the equilibrium by an amount x, but positive feedback means it moves, say, 2x to a new equilibrium position. Similarly, if you change the forcing by -x (i.e. a negative change), the equilibrium position will drop by 2 x. So all it does is magnify the changes either way. It doesn’t make the whole thing unstable, and you still need the forcing.

Add CO2 as a forcing, and water vapour feedback will kick in as the planet warms. Take away the CO2 forcing, and the temp will subside to what it was before (more or less, except that complicated non-linear effects may change things a bit).

You have an equilibrium position. You add a forcing that should move the equilibrium by an amount x, but positive feedback means it moves, say, 2x to a new equilibrium position. Similarly, if you change the forcing by -x (i.e. a negative change), the equilibrium position will drop by 2 x. So all it does is magnify the changes either way. It doesn’t make the whole thing unstable, and you still need the forcing.

The event that sets off regenerative feedback is NOT actually part of the loop and therefore can be removed once feedback process is started and the feedback will continue on its own.

Wiki:

Positive feedback tends to cause system instability. When the loop gain is positive and above 1, there will typically be exponential growth of any oscillations or divergences from equilibrium. System parameters will typically accelerate towards extreme values, which may damage or destroy the system, or may end with the system ‘latched’ into a new stable state. Positive feedback may be controlled by signals in the system being filtered, damped, or limited, or it can be cancelled or reduced by adding negative feedback.

Notice that I highlighted: “…may end with the system ‘latched’ into a new stable state.”

C. If the IPCC is correct, higher water vapour levels TRIPLE the warming effect of the original forcing….

D. Even if the original forcing disappears overnight, the planet is now THREE TIMES WARMER than before the original forcing event….

E. Therefore, the original forcing is no longer required to sustain the now fully activated positive (also known as “Regenerative” — clue?) feedback loop, which will continue to hum along as an independent mechanism to keep the climate system at warmer temperatures until some new cooling event shuts down the positive feedback loop.

A produces more of B which in turn produces more of A.*

OBSERVATION: This is nothing like what we see in nature where warming and cooling events have come and gone during the Holocene forming peaks and troughs, rather than long-lived plateaus ended only by dramatic forcing events.

CONCLUSION: Water vapour feedback on temperature is unlikely to be positive.

* Strawman Alert: Even if the water vapour feedback loop is strongly positive, it would not continue to warm the planet to ever higher and higher levels as heat radiation into space would reach an equilibrium state with the water vapour induced warming.

“Positive feedback loops are sources of growth, explosion, erosion, and collapse in systems. A system with an unchecked positive loop ultimately will destroy itself. That’s why there are so few of them. Usually a negative loop will kick in sooner or later.”

I probably shoud add that if you had of bothered to do a simple google search you would have found this study by Solomon in which she states

Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10% after the year 2000. Here we show that this acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000–2009 by about 25% compared to that which would have occurred due only to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. More limited data suggest that stratospheric water vapor probably increased between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s by about 30% as compared to estimates neglecting this change. These findings show that stratospheric water vapor is an important driver of decadal global surface climate change.

So lets recap here John, you claim WV is a +ve feed back which means that you believe as CO2 levels increase they will drive up the levels of WV in the atmosphere driving temps even higher. However as we can see above the exact opposite is happening WV is acting as a negative feed back so to put t bluntly John YOU ARE WRONG, your theory is wrong, Al Gore is wrong, Flip Flop is wrong, Steffen is wrong and the IPCC are wrong.

Just so i am clear on this lets recap again “as the CO2 rises it is creating more WV in the atmosphere that will lead to a +ve feed back temperature rise of up to 5 degrees or so” is this correct John?.

I wont ask for evidence simply because you dont have any, i on the other hand have ample evidence to refute what you say but you are not willing to even comment on that evidence.

Crakar, you’ve quoted an article that says that lower stratospheric water vapour decreased recently. But I still say that the total water vapour in the atmosphere is increasing. From the article:

These effects are relatively well understood in the lowest level of the atmosphere, the troposphere, where increased warming leads to greater evaporation, causing more water vapour and so further warming, although this is offset to some extent through the formation of clouds that reflect incoming sunlight back into space.

The troposphere contains most of the atmosphere. Anyway, it is fascinating stuff, and needs more research.

As for quantifying the temperature increase, I’ll just go with the IPCC, and say a doubling of CO2 should increase temperature by 2 – 4.5 C.

What about you Crakar, are you going with, “We are entering a new ice age” chorus? Or do you march to a different drum?

No matter what the origin is, however, Karen Rosenlof, a member of Solomon’s team, says it is now clear that stratospheric water vapour has a significant effect on global warming and that models’ inability to take this effect into account is a significant failing. “Given the calculated 25% drop in decadal warming,” she points out, “you could say that these models are only 75% right.” But she maintains that this result does not mean that the IPCC is barking up the wrong tree. “It doesn’t change the conclusion that global warming is manmade,” she says.

So no doubt you’ll be pleased to see that there is room for improvement in the models. Because more accurate knowledge about the future can’t be a bad thing…

You begin by claiming the WV levels in the atmosphere are increasing, i in turn show you a number of studies which conclusively show you and by logical extension the IPCC to be wrong and you respond with

Crakar, you’ve quoted an article that says that lower stratospheric water vapour decreased recently. But I still say that the total water vapour in the atmosphere is increasing. From the article:

Did you provide evidence of this thought? No of course not because you base all your thoughts on belief…i believe the WV content in the atmosphere has increased, i have no proof of my assertion but my belief system trumps your empirical system every time. What a waste of time you are John as i said nothing but a troll.

Exactly how is all of that accumulating water vapour going to remain in the atmosphere, John ? I’ll give you a simple hint as to why your view of a self-perpetuating heat ‘engine’ it practically not possible … thunderstorms and rain, what goes up must come down.

I believe the IPCC claim that high cloud is a positive feed back (traps heat) and low cloud is a negative feed back (reflects sunlight) and following IPCC simple logic we find that AGW will cause less rain and more droughts sooooooooooooooooo if we have less rain we have less low clouds therefore we must have more high cloud.

And tudddaaaa using simple logic clouds become a positive feed back and for all those that dont know, gaseous water vapour is where clouds come from but we have no idea how, when, where or why and neither do the models.

The hypothesis has become law because the UN has willed it to happen, regardless of proof.

They invented the IPCC to find the proof, it could not be found so they made it up
by distorting old data, ‘not showing their working” or cherry picking data that suited their ’cause’.
Greenpeace and WWF jointly run the IPCC incestuously to their mutual benefit and governments (ie you and me) around the world fund all of it allegedly for our own good which is supposed to make it all OK.
All the left wing greenie crazies and ban-the-bombers find friends at last and join them as useful idiots.

You would think the UN has some kind of agenda and you’d be right, it’s called Agenda 21, and nothing will stand in it’s way. UN governance is on it’s way, (we have the ‘lite’ version in the EU) with all national democracies
subordinate to a faceless unelected elite, so socialist dictatorship government by stealth will be with you all very soon comrades.

Climate alarmism is just a small part of the plan and if science ‘gets in the way’ it must either be eliminated
or tow the line. I think we all know which option has been chosen.

Well, If you take the success of the EU as being a model for a future UN global administration, then we don’t have too much to fear regarding this conspiracy theory.

Any organism gets to evolve in ever more complex ways until it collapses under its own inability to communicate internally. That is what we are seeing with the EU right now, and the same thing will happen with the UN (if it is not, already).

But – there is a subtle problem with the website. My ‘favourites’ entry would only produce ‘website not found’, but following the link from “Catallaxy” works, and the only difference I can see is the content following the url; /2012/10/manmade…etc. So http://joannenova.com.au alone gets you nada.
Regards Ian

Ian, we’ve realized that we accidentally recreated the site with /wp/ in the url. That is a problem. We removed it earlier today, but then no one could comment so we put it back. Obviously we will return the urls to the original format. We just need to find a better way. In the meantime, yes, try the /wp/… — Jo

To me the great unexplained item is why have the feedbacks and hence climate sensitivity has increased over time?

For the model assumptions to be correct then they have to explain and prove why they are different (Higher) now as opposed to the past when CO2 levels have been much higher yet did not result in run away climate warming.

FYI, the DNS change hasn’t propagated to one of my ISPs yet, so I have added the IP address for the site to my hosts file. I’ve reported it to my ISP just for completeness, and it can’t hurt to raise awareness of Jo’s site either. ;^)

There is need for a serious physics’ lesson for these climate science dorks. The assumption of 1.2 K warming for doubled [CO2] should really be zero. It’s because it’s based on the premise that the Earth radiates IR as if it were an isolated black body in a vacuum. This is seriously mistaken physics.

They get it by adding ‘back radiation’ to the net UP IR. The latter is obtained by subtracting DOWN IR ['back radiation'] measured by a radiometer, usually a pyrgeometer, from the UP IR measured by the same instrument.

However, although pyrgeometers are calibrated in W/m^2, this is not a real energy flux but the vector sum of the Poynting Vectors for all the waves arriving at the detector from the viewing angle set by the case of the instrument.

For a plane wave, the average PV = epsilon0.c.E0^2/2, elementary physics. Poynting’s Theorem states that the net power is determined by the vector sum of all the PVs at a point. To add ‘back radiation’ to net UP IR simply recreates the vector sum of the UP PVs, most of which is annihilated by the DOWN PVs.

This plus another basic error at TOA creates 40% more energy in the models than reality, offset by exaggerated cloud cooling. And as real emissivity of the surface is <<1, hence net UP IR of 63 W/m^2 is much less than the claimed black body 396 W/m^2, you have to look why. Real radiative heat transfer physics means the GHG thermal emission switches off that emission at the surface.

In their obsessive plan to exaggerate CO2-AGW for Marxist politics, these dorks have failed to do proper science. There can be no COP2-AGW. The real GHE is set by the reduction of surface emissivity.

I don’t know why people keep on referring to Marxism (well actually I do, it is an enduring legacy of McCarthyist propaganda, but that is another story).

If one subscribes to the belief that the UN is concertedly moving towards a one-world-government of unelected officials, then the model would be Fascist, rather than Marxist (or any other flavour of Communism).

Communists want to own the means of production, and distribute the output to each member of society, according to their needs.

Fascists want private ownership of production (by an elite), with distribution of the output being allocated through a monetary system that is based on each persons contribution to society.

If you want an example of Fascism in action, look towards the success of Spain under Franco.

Do not look towards Nazi Germany, Nazism is a different animal entirely.

Oh yes, and while I am commenting, turnedoutnice’s comment was not “rubbish.” The basic science, in terms of the feedbacks, is unproven because there is no repeatable empirical evidence, and because it relies on computer modelling of chaotic systems, which cannot be done in a deterministic way.

Just to correct you, Rereke,
Communists claim to distribute evenly according to needs as a propaganda point. In reality, they control production to distribute to an elite, while spreading the remaining crumbs evenly to ensure enslavement of the remainder, because their greatest perceived threat is a middle class with aspirations who might challenge control. So, intrinsically the large swathe of the population must be drip fed INVERSELY proportional to the wealth of that society. That is why it is a sick doctrine held by the socially and mentally challenged, a form of dismature collective insanity.

Yes, I was talking at the theoretical level, in the same way that I would say that America is a democracy, when it is actually moving towards becoming a Socialist Republic masquerading as as a democracy.

I would say that America is a democracy, when it is actually moving towards becoming a Socialist Republic masquerading as as a democracy.

I suggest a more accurate statement would be that America is a Constitutional Republic (based on inalienable rights) undergoing a tug-of-war with a “Progressive” wing that is trying to re-create it as a Socialist Democracy (without any protected rights, only what the majority will allow).

(I predict the Progressives are going to lose big, this time — but will never stop trying.)

Look at Agenda 21. Chock full of collectivist tenets, AGW being just a sliver of the “sustainable” pie. The WAY this (agenda 21) is made popular to the Left leaning masses and poor, is about as Marxist as you can imagine. How it will BEHAVE after the masses have given away all their freedoms to the controlling class, well that may look Fascist.

Surely you don’t think any of the communist regime leaders ACTUALLY believe in collectivism? No, the salesmen sold Marxism, the actual product delivered may appear different than the ad photos……….

The reason why people keep referring to Marxism is because it is a system of historical, philosophical and moral analysis which ends in some rather bleak proscriptions for modern society that ironically converge amazingly with the Green political agenda.

Furthermore, the Marxist gestalt has saturated every aspect of higher education. No one living today who has a tertiary education was not subjected to some aspect of Marxist indoctrination, whether they were aware of it or not. There is nothing wrong with this really, as long as one understands where and how the ideas one is wielding came to be. After all, Marxist analysis at its most mundane level is just the study of social evolution solely in terms of economic factors. As such, Marxist analysis dramatically changed for the better our understanding of history, which until Schopenhauer, Engels, Hegel and Marx, et al, was pretty much a dry list of kingly ascensions, poetry and battle descriptions. In the 19th century German philosophers introduced the idea of a historical dialectic of cycles and Marx built upon this new paradigm.

What is so insidious about Marxism is that while parts of it are truly useful as a paradigm for understanding how societies distribute power and wealth, when it comes to the proscriptive political theory, rather than the merely analytic aspect, Marxism is insanely conspiratorial, full of envy and hate, wildly irrational, amoral and murderously totalitarian. It is every bit as evil of the worse nightmares of fascism. In fact, more than 100-million people were murdered by governments in the name of achieving Marx’s millenarian classless society.

True hardcore Marxists all believe that ultimately millions and millions of people will have to be liquidate during the transitional dictatorship necessary to achieve a classless, property-less society. One can see why Marxism and Deep Green political theory naturally dovetail. Both share secret fantasies of depopulating the planet of anyone who opposes them and many who do not, as well.

But the genocidally insane tendency of Marxism — or by now more properly labelled neo-Marxism — people rarely, if ever, let slip into conscious awareness. Instead we hear about community organising and cooperatives, “affirmative action,” social justice, spirit fingers, noble Che Guevara, global authorities, expansion of entitlements and rights, which are ironically based upon the contraction of someone else’s rights. Animal rights. Climate justice. “Spreading the wealth around.” The poor’s right to taxpayer-funded digital TV, “You didn’t build that,” etc., etc. etc… At the same time the real foundational human liberties are degraded. Your right to offend religious and cultural pieties with free speech is now in doubt for the first time in a century or more. Your right to private property or to defend your home are increasing in doubt. Bob Brown’s inquiry to restrict media scrutiny of the Greens threatens a free national discourse. The NBN is an attempt by the government to “own” access to the world wide web.

As such, Marxist dialectics form the animating, if invisible, paradigm underpinning the philosophy of the Climate Change industry. After all, as Jo Nova’s blog well demonstrates, climate change dogma certainly doesn’t ride proudly upon the back of hard science. Karl Marx himself would have advised: Follow the money! Who owns the means of climate change rhetorical production? Who benefits by oppressing skeptical dissent?

It is the confluence of Green “Save The Planet” demagoguery with Marxist socio-economic prophecy, that preaches free markets must inevitably self-destruct and beyond which lies a socialist utopia that has brought us to this point in the climate debate where no warmist will publicly debate the science, yet they still hold fanatically their millenarian faith.

Why is it that in the face of so much contrary evidence the Warmists remain in denial? It can only be explained the alluring political siren call of the Marxist millenarian narrative, although it is doubtful most Warmists are even aware of the historical pedigree of their ideology.

To be sure: There is no such thing as an organised Marxist global conspiracy to for world domination. It is enough that the fantasy meme exists.

There doesn’t have to be a conspiracy because Marxism to the Greens, to sanctimonious so-called intellectuals and to holier-than-thou leftists who imagine they were born to rule, is simply so self-evident to be beyond question… a self-fulfilling prophecy that must someday, somehow magically come to pass.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to oppose collectivisation and defend individual civil liberties, starting with vigorously exercising your right to freely express yourself.

The Common Purpose organization which indoctrinated Cameron, Prescott and others in the UK government, also probably Rudd and Gillard, is based on Fabianism, a precursor of Marxism which is evolving to a version of totalitarianism, a hybrid of communism and Mussolini’s fascism. Thus the EU is becoming the EUSSR but the carbon offset plantations in the third World plus the attempt to impose the airline carbon taxation is classical imperialism.

The windmills are the tool of the State, an amalgam of the Windmill in Animal Farm, the Easter Island Statues and the Swastika, a symbol of totalitarian domination.

They are controlled by corporations, renewables and banking, which own the State. The people will be starved of energy to make the Mafia and the apparatchiks rich. In the UK we have a serious problem of corruption in the civil service and science, the same as Australia.

The UK economy will probably soon collapse like Argentina’s when its state spending became unaffordable. In the UK millions will die in the frigid winters to come as the new LIA evolves. This winter will be very cold and the power cuts will start to dominate.

The cold winter of 2010-2011 did not have power cuts because the country was in deep industrial recession. This year, industry is fairy healthy so we’ll have major outages when the wind doesn’t blow.

I happen to have trained as a process engineer and have a PhD in applied physics from Imperial. So I can assure you I am absolutely right: no-one has been able to put forward a satisfactory argument for the ‘consensus’ because it breaches a Century of experimental data from some of the greatest ever experimentalists, e.g. Froude, Prandtl, Nusselt, Rayleigh……..

Meteorologist Trenberth plus some modellers encouraged by Houghton, who made two serious mistakes in his treatise, made two false assumptions when they adapted Manabe and Wetherald. The letter assumed SW DOWN = LW UP, correct physics but a gross exaggeration.

The new models assumed TOA DOWN emissivity = 1 and black body IR from the earth’s surface and the lower atmosphere. It gives a perpetual motion machine. In reality TOA DOWN emissivity = 0 because there cannot be direct thermalisation of absorbed IR. Instead it pseudo-scatters to space.

The result of these serious mistakes is to exaggerate IR absorption by 5x, an energy increase of 40%. It is not just me saying this. Here is an official APS document in which the physicists cover their arses by quietly pointing out the energy imbalance [eq. 14]: http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/hafemeister.cfm

Because convection and radiation are coupled, there is no analytical solution for the Earth’s surface interaction with the atmosphere. This APS docment pays lip service to the consensus by accepting the black body assumption for the surface IR and reducing atmospheric emissivity, but it’s still wrong.

The real GHE must be reduction of surface emissivity by GHGs turning off that emission. The Aarhenius ‘GHG blanket’ is impossible and must be dumped. There can be no CO2-AGW. Those who persist in their delusional black body belief are either incompetent or fraudsters.

They must choose the appropriate category. I suspect you don’t have any science so are exempt.

“Shortwave in longwave out” is not correct physics, it’s fictional fisics deliberately dumbing down real basic physics for the general population.

The claim that direct longwave from the Sun is somehow stopped by an invisible barrier by the atmosphere and only shortwave gets through is stupid enough, but to claim that shortwave can do the work that direct longwave from the Sun does is complete la-la land. It’s basic science idiocy. Show where the science of Optics teaches this..

The longwave direct from the Sun is the Sun’s thermal energy on the move to us, this is the Sun’s HEAT. This, since Herschel and understood still in traditional physics, is the invisible thermal infrared. This is what we feel as heat, this is what heats us up, this is what heats up matter, the land and ocean. It takes heat to heat up matter, just as it does to cook your dinners. Visible light, the “shortwave in”, cannot, cannot, cannot, physically do this.

This fictional fisics meme was created like this to promote the idea of thermal infrared backradiation, so any thermal infrared, heat, measured as downwelling from the atmosphere would be attributed to “greenhouse gases” bouncing it back to heat the earth.

The rest of the fisics in the KT97 and the kin Greenhouse Effect basics is equally as idiotic. Carbon dioxide defying gravity and accumulating has been created by taking out the real atmosphere altogether! They’ve substituted empty space populated by ‘ideal gas’, without volume, attraction, weight, not subject to gravity so they have no convection, only radiation. They don’t have anything to convect.

Convection is the method of heat transfer in a fluid, which our atmosphere is, that’s how we get our winds and weather.

This AGWScienceFiction fisics is so ridiculous it practically defies belief that any could believe it, but it has been successfully introduced into the education system in the Fabian way so the majority without real physics knowledge don’t ever question it..

I accept your point. However, my task has been to use the K-T energy budget without questioning the data except the back radiation bit. You see, it all balances with and without the back radiation. The latter is however needed to offset the 238.5 W/m^2 TOA DOWN IR which comes from assuming TOA DOWN emissivity =1 when correcting the IR physics, it has to be zero.

The net result is to introduce 94.5 W/m^2 extra energy which the Met Office modellers explain by a numerical trick ‘as being the result of the use of S-B’. But it’s not and they’re wrong.

It all comes down to this mistake and the ‘back radiation’ which does not exist except as the artefact of the radiometer measurement. That is the lesson I am imparting. Claes johnson’s maths which aims at the same is indecipherable to most!

They get it by adding ‘back radiation’ to the net UP IR. The latter is obtained by subtracting DOWN IR ['back radiation'] measured by a radiometer, usually a pyrgeometer, from the UP IR measured by the same instrument.

‘Heat islands exist because the land surface in towns and cities, which is made of materials like tarmac and stone, absorbs and stores heat. That, coupled with concentrated energy use and less ventilation than in rural areas, creates a heating effect.’

The real reason is that radiation and convection are coupled. Reduce convection by erecting walls and to maintain constant convection + radiation, temperature has to rise. The beach windbreak is a good example.

These people haven’t looked at basic heat transfer theory. Because they haven’t got the basics right, no Met. Office climate model can predict climate.

PS the reason the met. office and other modellers won’t acknowledge the real cause of the UHI is that to do so, they would have to admit that the Earth does not emit IR as if it were an isolated black body in a vacuum, so the GHE is the reduction of its emissivity.

The real reason is that radiation and convection are coupled. Reduce convection by erecting walls and to maintain constant convection + radiation, temperature has to rise. The beach windbreak is a good example.

These people haven’t looked at basic heat transfer theory. Because they haven’t got the basics right, no Met. Office climate model can predict climate.

They have utterly failed in their duty.

They don’t have convection. They just have radiation in empty space.

They don’t have convection because they don’t have an atmosphere around their Earth.

They don’t understand convection in heat transfer because it doesn’t exist in their KT97 and ilk Greenhouse Effect energy budgets. That’s why AGW’s fisics doesn’t have the Water Cycle, or rain in the Carbon Cycle, and why their supermolecule defies gravity to accumulate for hundreds and even thousands of years, because they don’t have gravity.

There is no gravity or heat transfer by convection because they have nothing for gravity to act on and nothing to convect.

What? Yes, really.

This is what real science sceptics haven’t appreciated in the arguments with AGWScienceFiction. They’re arguing with people who have no concepts of the real world around us. They have a completely imaginary world. Their energy budget is only on the fictional fisics of their imaginary world and they think real science arguments are something novel(!).

I discovered this when I first began exploring ‘Global Warming’, I was interested in their claim that carbon dioxide could accumulate for hundreds and even thousands of years and the PhD physics who was introducing me to the IPCC claims also taught gases at university level.

I asked him how carbon dioxide could accumulate because it was heavier than air, I said it sinks in air. He said it couldn’t separate out. I said, nonsense, and gave him real world examples where carbon dioxide separates out such as in mines, around volcanic vents, breweries. I think he was genuinely surprised to hear this. He still wasn’t admitting it could separate out, said something about maybe in large amounts it was bringing down the air with it…

I couldn’t quite believe what I was hearing from him, thought maybe I had misunderstood what he was saying, so, I proposed a scenario as he now accepted that carbon dioxide could pool on the ground.

There is a room where carbon dioxide has pooled on the ground, and nothing changes to the conditions which allowed the carbon dioxide to pool, no work is done, no windows opened, no fan put on. I said the carbon dioxide would remain pooled on the ground because it was heavier than air and so couldn’t rise up into the air. He said it would very quickly diffuse into the air of the room as per ideal gas [under its own molecular momentum] and so become thoroughly mixed where it couldn’t become unmixed without an extreme amount of work being done [as for example it would take to separate back out ink that had been poured into water].

So what did he mean? It took me a while to piece it all together, but what he was teaching, the AGWSF fisics, is that the atmosphere is empty space of ideal gas in a container in an imaginary lab (and in their invisible and unexplained greenhouse glass shell blocking out beam thermal infrared). Ideal gas is purely imaginary, a hard massless dot travelling at great speeds it has no weight, no volume, no attraction, so of course not subject to gravity because there’s nothing for gravity to act on.

That is why they have radiation only and no heat transfer by convection, because they have empty space populated by ideal gas molecules and do not the heavy fluid voluminous real gas ocean around us.

Seriously, they have excised our whole atmosphere.

They are oblivious to the fact that they have no sound in their world..

So of course, they don’t understand wind, or any weather, which we have from the great movements of volumes of the real gas air caused by differential heating. They call themselves ‘climate scientists’ and have zilch knowledge of the real gas atmosphere around us which gives us our winds and weather.

You have to bear something in mind here, this was introduced into the education system some time ago. The guy teaching me about AGW fisics had no idea what real gas was. Had no idea what I meant when I asked when carbon dioxide diffused was it by sticking molecules of nitrogen and oxygen together to form a balloon? Because his fisics was completely based on ideal gas descriptions, pre Van der Waals. I could never find Waals mentioned on any of the warmist sites discussing gases.

He had absolutely no concept of the difference between the imaginary ideal gas and real gases, no concept of volume, etc. His actual world’s atmosphere was empty space with hard dot massless ideal gases zipping around at great speeds under their own momentum bouncing off each other in elastic collisions and so thoroughly mixing.

That’s why:
their ideal gas carbon dioxide can accumulate for hundreds and even thousands of years, it has no weight and isn’t subject to gravity because it has no mass, no volume, no attraction – his magic carbon dioxide molecule travels at great ideal gas speeds (very high temps/very low pressure) even at ground level, in this room where carbon dioxide has pooled on the floor..

They, AGWSF fisics, doesn’t have the real volume of gas Air which is a fluid in the real world, in real world science it is not empty space, but a heavy ocean of gas weighing down on us a ton on our shoulders.

So, they don’t have wind and weather, they have no volume of gases to convect and they don’t have separation of gases by weight under gravity, they don’t have the water cycle, they don’t have rain in the carbon cycle, they don’t have heat transfer by convection, they don’t have sound.

They go straight from the surface to SB empty space radiation.

A word of caution, they don’t have any internal coherence in their fisics, because the parts are impossible in the real world, so they will mix and twist and take out of context descriptions to explain their fisics.

For example, to explain this “spontaneous diffusion under its own molecular momentum in elastic collisions”, they will give a classroom example, get them young, of opening a bottle of scent and as the kids around the class get a whiff of it they are given this description which comes from ideal gas and told that’s how carbon dioxide quickly mixes by bouncing off the other gas molecules, but, sometimes they are also told that carbon dioxide is mixed by Brownian motion.., that carbon dioxide is bumped by the other gas molecules and so doing thoroughly mixes. That these are two entirely different scenarios doesn’t bother them, you have to understand that their AGWSF fisics is designed to confuse, not to educate.

Brownian motion of course premises on fluid volume, and the distances are nanometres – quite different from the empty space ideal gas scenario they give of their molecules zipping at great speeds covering huge distances in empty space.

The real explanation for the spread of scent of course is basic convection in a fluid medium, with the different weights and effects of the actual scent molecules which is alchohol and water, the alchohol having a triggering effect on water at the surface making it even lighter than air than it usually evaporates. The other one they give is ink being poured into a glass of water, again, they are simply told that this is how carbon dioxide thoroughly mixes, but don’t ever tell that what the children are seeing is fluid convection currents. (*)

Convection currents in the Air are called winds, volumes of the fluid gas air on the move, just as convection currents in the ocean called currents which are volumes of fluid liquid water on the move.

And, just to round it off, they don’t have sound because it takes volumes of air to give us sound, there is no sound in empty space. The molecules comprising the volume are not going at ideal gas speeds through empty space, they are not going anywhere fast except on the spot. Sound travels in air like waves in the fluid liquid water of the ocean, the sound will cause a molecule to vibrate more energetically where it is, it then causes its neighbour to vibrate more energetically and itself will go back to ground state, like a mexican wave the energy of the sound is passed along through the volume of air. It’s not a volume of air moving, that’s wind.

That the Met Office doesn’t know how we get wind and weather from volumes of real gas convection..? It really wouldn’t surprise me because this PhD physics teaching about gases actually really believed that our atmosphere was empty space, he had no concept of gases with volume etc. He said he would fail me in the exams he set…

(*) Re diffusion of gases.

Here’s a typical ideal gas explanation from someone educated from a young age in the fake fisics from AGWSF:

Best Answer – Chosen by Voters
diffusion of gases is basically when a gas spreads itself around its container. best example…..farts. when you fart you don’t smell it immediately, it takes a while, thats because when it leaves your tush all the molecules are bunched together. then once it enters the surrounding environment the fart molecules start bumping off air molecules (kind of like pool balls hitting off each other) and spreading themselves around the room. that’s when the stink hits you.
hope that helps!
Source(s):
doing a phd in chem

Separation diffusion from convection in gasesWhile Brownian motion of multi-molecular mesoscopic particles (like pollen grains studied by Brown) is observable under an optical microscope, molecular diffusion can only be probed in carefully controlled experimental conditions. Since Graham experiments, it is well known that avoiding of convection is necessary and this may be a non-trivial task.

Under normal conditions, molecular diffusion dominates only on length scales between nanometer and millimeter. On larger length scales, transport in liquids and gases is normally due to another transport phenomenon, convection, and to study diffusion on the larger scale, special efforts are needed.

Therefore, some often cited examples of diffusion are wrong: If cologne is sprayed in one place, it will soon be smelled in the entire room, but a simple calculation shows that this can’t be due to diffusion. Convective motion persists in the room because the temperature inhomogeneity. If ink is dropped in water, one usually observes an inhomogeneous evolution of the spatial distribution, which clearly indicates convection (caused, in particular, by this dropping).

It’s not that they haven’t got the basics right, they have their own basics. They’re arguing from what they have been educated to think is real basics, but which has been deliberately created to dumb them down.

Not according to Prof Ross Garnaut – the confucius of GAIA and CAGW cult:

“there’s no doubt what climate science says and the people who are clinging to the false hope that it’s all a hoax and a bit of witchcraft are diminishing. There’s a few still kicking and screaming, and increasingly, sadly, it will become clear that they’re really on the margins of things.” Refer Pat in Unthreaded.

Here’s an update on CONfucius Garnaut:
1. Ross Garnaut is Chair of the Board of the PNG Sustainable Development Programme (PNGSDP).
2. PNGSDP holds OK Tedi Mining Ltd (OTML) shares on behalf of the State of PNG.
3. PNGSDP invests the dividends (currently around a billion dollars) in Singapore.
4. Ross Garnaut is also the Chairman of the Board of OTML
5. OTML is still polluting the Fly River.
6. Ross Garnaut was also Chair of Lihir Gold for 10 years.
7. Lihir Gold mine dumped waste which resulted in 60 square miles of smothered sea floor.
8. Ross Garnaut was apparently paid $300,000 per year during his time at Lihir.
9. Ross Garnaut shares $600,000 per year between seven directors of PNGSDF.
10.Ross Garnaut as chairman & director for 11 years at OTML earnings have been very large.
11.Ross Garnaut joined the Board of Highlands Pacific, that owns 8.7% in the Ramu Nickel.
12.Ramu Nickel dumps over 5 million tonnes of toxic mine waste into the Bismark sea.
13.Ramu Nickel dumps this waste 400m off shore and at a depth of 150m.

Now here is a man that is telling us we are wrong about CAGW, and that we should tighten our belts – while this man cannot even identify pollution when he states that Deep Sea Dumping is OK? But we have to pay CO2 tax as this horrible gas is changing and damaging the our world beyond repair. Proffessor Ross Garnaut then proceeds to earn huge quantities of money in PNG, living a dream while only filling the Fly River with pollution, the Bismark Sea being treated as a toxic dump and Lihir Island sea beds being smoothed by gold mining waste.

Seems CONfucius has trouble with the definition of POLLUTION and WEALTH yet seems to understand the meaning of DOUBLE standards.

While your criticisms of Mr Garnaut are mostly well founded, I think I should clarify something about dumping mine tailings in the sea.

If you dump tailings into rivers or the seas where anything lives, such as coral, fish etc. it is obviously a very bad thing. However, in deep, anoxic (oxygen depleted), water where there are no currents, it is completely harmless, as this is where the sea floor is usually covered with fine, sulphide rich, muds. In other words, these are areas where the sea floor is naturally toxic to most life forms.

Where there is no oxygen in the water, then it is impossible for the insoluble sulphides in the tailings to oxidise into something soluble and dangerous. In reality, the best and safest place for mine tailings is the bottom of the ocean.

As an example, it is well documented that the entire Black Sea is anoxic below 150 metres.

The lateritic Ni and Co ore refinery solid tailings are predicted to form a sedimentary apron within the submarine canyon and seaward between the 500 and 1500 metre depth contours, over an area of at least 150 km2 of ocean floor, to a thickness of tens of meters. The area in which this occurs is within the “Coral Triangle”, an area described by marine biologists as having the highest diversity of corals, fish, crustaceans, molluscs and marine plant species in the world (Veron et al., 2009).

The dominant large scale oceanic features are: the strong New Guinea Coastal Undercurrent that flows west along the coast at about 200 metres depth; the New Guinea Coastal Current that reverses with the monsoons; and a wind-driven upwelling plume during the SE monsoon that spreads along the PNG coast (Cresswell, 2000). In the vicinity of the mine outfall, none of these appear to drive massive large-scale upwelling (Hasegawa et. al, 2010). However, progressive vector diagrams published in the Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) (NSR, 1999 and Coffey enesar, 2007) show clear evidence of onshore drift near the seabed above the proposed outfall site at about 1 cm/s (750 metres/day). The drift is persistent; while it occasionally swings alongshore, it was seen most of the time and in all months of the year. If it continued onshore beyond the point of observation, it would advect a suspended fraction up into the base of the mixed layer and possibly beyond. The mixed layer is often as little as 30 metres vertically above the proposed outfall. Thus, the fears of the local landowners are well-founded.

Sorry for the large cut & pastes – but Madang is only 40 km away and I have been in this area. The visual proof is there now. I think 150 meters is fine in ideal conditions – but the Bismark Sea is not this. Lihir is also similar to the situation above – and the Fly River is a toxic dump.

I may add that these two companies (Lihir and Ramu Nickel) and its consultants have argued before the Court that, because the site is located in a seismically active and high rainfall zone with sharp topography, a conventional land-based tailings storage facility (TSF) is too expensive and environmentally unsuitable. Not Good logic.

No wonder Mr. Garnaut is on the boards of mining companies in PNG and not Australia.

All I was trying to explain is the meaning of the word pollution – in the case of Prof Garnauts employers – none of this would of happened in Australian waters?

CO2 is not pollution – but the 1,100 landowners surrounding this toxic dump are not Ross Garnaut supporters – however popular he may be with the government of PNG.

Kerry: Tonight John and Bryan look at the new science behind climate modeling.

Bryan: Professor John Clarke, what is the latest in climate modeling?

John: Modeling is a complex and expensive process, Bryan. It involves handling multiple variables in chaotic interaction with each other in ways we frankly don’t understand. All processed using dubious data on energy-sapping supercomputers at enormous cost to the environment and the tax payer. But the worst part of modeling is the verification and auditing phase, of course.

Bryan: Why’s that?

John: Because there are people out there who think they should be right. Verification is a total waste of time that could be productively used in other pursuits.

Bryan: Such as?

John: Writing grant applications and getting some of that lovely… MONEY!

Bryan: And so you have found a newer, faster method for climate modeling?

John: Yes, Bryan. It’s an old solution for a new problem. Fast, efficient and with minimal carbon footprint.

Bryan: What is it?

John; The Ouija Board, Bryan.

Bryan: The Ouija Board?

John: Yes, the Ouija Board. Made from 100% renewable resources, fast, efficient and reliable. And best of all, it requires no verification or auditing procedures. Which frees up our valuable time for important activities…

Bryan: The lovely money?

John: Yes, Bryan, it is. And, in the hands of a skilled climate scientist, the Ouija Board is 100% accurate.

Bryan: That’s amazing! What have you learnt so far?

John: Well, Bryan, we have communicated with creatures from beyond the grave to obtain accurate historical climatic and lifestyle data. For example, we now know that none of our respondents before the year 1903 regularly engaged in aeroplane travel, which by strange coincidence matches the period when catastrophic climate change began to be observed.

Bryan: Truly amazing!

John: And our ghostly visitors regularly comment on the current global climate.

Bryan: For example?

John: A typical response is [nasal voice] “Lovely and warm here, I’d watch your CO2 emissions if I were you.” And then they usually give us a very detailed report on the climate of their day.

John: The very same Bryan. It was as cold as a witch’s tit. Got it straight from the man himself.

Bryan: But what about the Roman dress? I saw a statue of him wearing thongs and a bed sheet, with his tackle hanging out.

John: Funny you say that Brian – I asked him the very same question. It transpires that he was on his way to a toga party at the time. He was always having someone take a statue of him on his way to a toga party. Rest of the time he was snugged up like a bug in a rug.

Bryan: But what about the Vikings? The Medieval Warm Period – have you spoken to them?

John: Again Bryan, no such thing. A very sad case that, the Vikings. Went on a pleasure cruise to Greenland, where they all perished from the combined effects of starvation and hypothermia. Very cold, Greenland, even today.

Bryan: But didn’t the Vikings live in Greenland for centuries?

John: A resilient race, the Vikings. Very resilient. Hard to kill. Took them centuries to freeze. Quite sad.

Bryan: So you’ve conclusively proven that global temperatures are at unprecedented levels, all due to the catastrophic effects of mankind’s emissions, notably CO2?

John: Got it in one Bryan. Unprecedented, and so was the one before.

Bryan: What about verification? Can’t a climate sceptic also use these techniques?

Which model? There’s at least 12 of them that the IPCC have used. The “PCM” model was the only one that gave a fairly good reconstruction.
Some people (such as Nic Lewis) have found that most IPCC models do not get run enough times to reach a representative average output value, so what is reported as their output might not even be the model’s “proper” central estimate.

The other thing to question (and I don’t know the answer) is whether these IPCC models can only reconstruct the past when trained on “all the data” – i.e. including the part of the past they are reconstructing, because that would be cheating. The proper way is set aside the most recent data as validation data, and “train” the model only on prior data.

Scafetta’s harmonic model (see 12th page) is the only one I’ve heard of that can closely reconstruct 1850-1950 after being trained on 1950-2000 data, which is proof about as good as you’re ever likely to get that the climate is still currently in an (almost) entirely natural cycle.
I say “almost” because it gets the first decade after 1850 a bit too cool which might suggest recent warming is slightly more than is typical, but to amount to such a small error over 100 years shows it to be minuscule.

Scafetta doesn’t mind blowing his own trumpet:

The RMS residual value relative to the harmonic model is
0.051°C, while for the GCMs we get RMS residual values from 2 to
5 times larger. This result further indicates that the geometrical
model is significantly more accurate than the GCMs in reconstructing
the global surface temperature from 1850 to 2011.
The above finding reinforces the conclusion of Scafetta (2010b)
that the IPCC (2007) GCMs do not reproduce the observed major
decadal and multidecadal dynamical patterns observed in the
global surface temperature record.

Dan Pangburn has a model that’s beating the GCM’s too. You can access it via the side box at Climate Realists. He’s a little out-of-the-money at the moment but time will tell I think. I’m sure Scafetta’s model will fail in a decade or so maybe sooner because he’s calculated an underlying quadratic for HadCRUT3 that’s no longer valid. There’s been a negative inflexion in HadSST2 in recent years that Scafetta’s quadratic doesn’t represent.

I think Dan’s on a winner given his rationale and the PDO+AMO+Sunspot Integral/Global SAT correlation of 0.96.

Figure 2.1 page 19 shows 1 simulation (# 23 possibly) on the right trajectory. I don’t know which model that is but I’ll email him one day and ask. Even that model will soon be out-of-the-money when air temperatures follow the oceanic cycle/sunspot cycle composite eventually.

Bottom line: if the the 2013 IPCC AR5 ensemble – using IPCC RF methodology – can’t mimic the first decade of the 21st century, they sure as can’t mimic the last.

Of course models try and hindcast. You will really struggle to convince people you’ve got the future right if you can’t predict the past.

The point about genuine models, is that they are greatly constrained by having to obey the laws of physics. But no doubt there are sufficient levers in these models to adjust them to fit the past. The problems with the models must arise from an inability to take into account all the relevant phenomena, and clouds are possibly one thing that aren’t adequately included in the models.

John, wrong again ! The models are greatly constrained by the bias of the modeller … garbage in = garbage out. If you only twiddle the knob labelled “CO2″ then it will be the only variable impacting the output … and if that same label represents the backward beliefs in CAGW ‘nonscience’ (that’s a new word that I lay claim to … nonsense, get it ? ) that CO2 has some magical property to create a perpetual heat engine in the atmosphere, well there you have it … it’s worse than we thought.

Bryan: [Behind counter.] Good morning sir! How may we assist you today?

John: I have a complaint.

Bryan: A complaint? In regards to what, sir?

John: In regards this theorem purchased today from this very establishment. [Places large red volume, marked “IPCC” on counter.]

Bryan: Ooooh! A Global Warming Theorem! Lovely verbage…

John: The verbage is not the point of discussion. The underlying theory is… dead.

Bryan: [Gasp] Dead?

John: Dead. Demised. Invalid. Falsified. Lacking substantive evidence and or at odds with known physical reality. In breach of the basic rules of science and logic. No longer considered viable as a paradigm via which mankind can understand the cosmos and his place therein. Dead.

Bryan: It’s not dead sir – he’s just pining. Pining for the glaciers of the Himalaya’s.

John: My good man. The only pines involved were the late lamented Bristlecones vandalised by Michael Mann in the course of his fraudulent activities.

Bryan: We mustn’t speak like that sir! Professor Mann is a good man – an honourable man!

John: The hypothetical region of hot gases located in the equatorial troposphere proposed by the IPCC as a necessary stage in global warming and a certain sign and precursor of forthcoming climate Armageddon? It did cross my mind.

Bryan: We found it sir.

John: You found the hot spot? Where?

Bryan: Exactly where it was supposed to be sir! It was there all along!

John: Then why wasn’t it discovered earlier?

Bryan: Because people were looking for the hot spot with thermometers sir!

John: Isn’t that what thermometers are for?

Bryan: Only sometimes sir. You see, the thermometer is a terribly quantitative instrument. And every time we measure something, there is a risk that we’ll be wrong. Perhaps only out by a fraction of a degree. But if we make thousands and thousands of measurements, then the cumulative errors are massive – tens or thousands of degrees! Have you any idea what that would do to the science?

John: No, but I still think it’s a good idea to measure temperature with a thermometer.

Bryan: But there’s a better way, sir!

John: Such as?

Bryan: Wind shear! A surefire potential indicator of inferring a possible temperature differential in a column of unhindered air. All we do is measure the wind speed and direction at various points in the troposphere, homogenise the data, synthesise a suitable algorithm, take away the wife’s birthday and – there you have it – a tropospheric hot spot!

John: Don’t have any data, perchance?

Bryan: Why certainly, sir! Consider if you may, this graphical illustration. [Pulls out chart.] It shows wind velocity as a function of longtitude and altitude. The dots in the middle are the data points.

John: And what are those bat-like wings projecting from the data points?

Bryan: They’re the error bars. They show the range of potential error in each measurement.

John: Which seems to extend from “Flat Calm” to “Hurricane Force”. The errors span the width of the Beaufort Scale!

Bryan: And notice, sir, how all of the data points lie comfortably within those limits! Clearly demonstrating that the physical measurements infer a situation that is not inconsistent with the existence of a tropospheric hot spot in the exact location nominated by the IPCC! You can’t ask for more than that sir.

John: I suppose you can’t. But what about the global temperature record?

Bryan: I’m glad you asked sir. Nothing demonstrates the effects of global warming more clearly than the global temperature record. Kindly peruse this further graphical illustration. [Shows temperature record since 1850.]

John: Yes, I see. And there is a corresponding increase in the atmospheric CO2 content over the same period. But how do you know the two are actually related? Did the CO2 cause the temperature rise or was it the other way around? Or was it just a coincidence?

Bryan: More CO2 always means more temperature – we all know that sir. And have you ever found a sceptic who could provide scientific evidence that the correlation was a coincidence sir?

John: No, I suppose not.

Bryan: There you go. Another sceptical argument shot to pieces. Their guile and sophistry is no match for our scientific and logical rigour, is it sir?

John: You’re right. But what about the paleoclimate – that period millions and hundreds of millions years ago?

Bryan: You mean a period in which atmospheric CO2 levels were a dozen times higher than today, in the course of which earth endured Ice Ages nonetheless? I’ve heard of them.

John: But how does one explain them?

Bryan: You forget, sir, that the sun is evolving. And that, during the period in question, its energy output was only 95% of what we see today. A colder sun means a colder earth – hence the forementioned Ice Ages.

John: But doesn’t Stephan-Boltzmann come into this somewhere?

Bryan: The basic law of radiation heat transfer which denotes that the equilibrium temperature of a black body surface varies as the fourth root of the radiative energy it emits?

John: Yes.

Bryan: An unnecessary refinement sir – it has little or no bearing to the issue at hand. And we all know that the surface of the sun isn’t black – it’s generally yellow with red patches. I wouldn’t worry myself about that sir.

John: Well, I think you’ve convinced me. There’s nothing wrong with this theory at all. Thank you for your time. Good day.

Bryan: No, wait sir! I sense that sir is not satisfied, and it is a well known tenet of science that when new facts are available, it is necessary to update one’s theory. [Takes book, places it under the counter.]

John: My theorem!

Bryan: And here it is sir, updated. [Recovers identical book from under counter, shows it to John.] It’s called the “Global Climate Disruption” theorem. Yours for only $50.

John: [Hands over money, takes book.]

Bryan: Lovely verbage…

John: [Leaving shop, smiling to camera.] Now that’s what I call service!

In reading the comments and people asking if there is any correlation data about CO2 doubling, etc, at some points in the far past, there was a much higher CO2 level, even double or more what it is today. As is to be expected, there are multiple interpretations of the data and multiple theories as to what it all means. If nothing else is clear in all of this, it should be very clear that trying to explain climate and climate change is like asking a four-year-old to explain why the sky is blue. We lack sufficient knowledge of a massively complex system to in any way predict or even fully understand climate. More disturbing is the insistence that we actually do posses the knowledge through computer modeling. Computers apparently made us believe we are gods and can understand everything if we just get the input parameters right. How we know what right is was not actually evident. If we could explain climate fully, with all the feedbacks, forcings, etc., we probably could cure all diseases, immediately kick out the “Theory of Everything” with complete precision, etc. We just are not that brilliant. It’s wonderful that we explore and question and try to understand, but we do need to recognize our limits. This is the mark of good science. We always look for a better, more complete explanation. Even the most widely accepted science can suddenly be turned on its head by new data. Quantum mechanics is a good example. Science is about learning as much as it is about knowing.
This is an excellent article and I am bookmarking it for future reference. Thanks, Jo and Anthony.

This is a great summary of the issue and the evidence. What a way to make a triumphant return.

I fear that this climate zombie will keep coming back for another scare no matter how many times it is pronounced dead by the heroes. As schlock horror fans will be aware, complete decapitation is the only sure way to kill a zombie.

Back in April 2010, during the volcano flying ban in Europe, Alex Cockburn wrote a piece about modeling of all sorts. Midway through the article, he shifted his attention to modeling in climate science, and what he had to say he said very well:

Contrast the demonstrated impossibility of computer modeling the simple downwind dispersion of a plume from a single smokestack or volcano with the mind-boggling scientific hubris of trying to model the climate of the entire globe.

Here we start with endlessly faulty data — from instruments parked on urban “heat islands” to severely massaged data bases of daily temperature readings, from sketchy numbers for the vast reaches of the planet where there are almost no readings, to expurgation of decades of inconvenient data. Then these are meshed with models constructed around bad thermodynamics, baseless suppositions about the hugely dominant heat effects of water vapor and clouds, and hopelessly inaccurate quantifications of carbon uptake by the earth’s forests and oceans.

These quack science models are further skewed by the modelers’ doctrinaire anti-carbon passions, the vetting of their results by the corrupt bureaucracy of the U.N.’s IPCC and the dependence of their salaries on the expectations of funding agencies.

Small wonder, then, that the modelers’ computer “reconstructions” of the planet’s past climate conveniently wiped out the well-documented three-centuries-long Medieval Warming Period, as well as the subsequent 500 years of Little Ice Age — nor is it surprising that their terrifying computer prognostications in the IPCC’s 2001 Third Assessment failed to predict the next decade’s absence of any global warming trend at all.

Here in the UK the talk is all about the Arctic melt, not a word on the Antarctic record. Funny, that. I posted the data on the ice extent on the The Telegraph (James Delingpole’s blog on fracking) and the warmists assumed it was temperature data and that it confirmed a 30 year warming trend!

It takes only one experiment to disprove a theory. The climate models are predicting a global disaster, but the empirical evidence disagrees. The theory of catastrophic man-made global warming has been tested from many independent angles. …”
==============================================

I am sorry to disappoint you, but nothing in the whole article disproves the theory. Yes, the theory is apparently at least unproven, and an essential part of it seems to have been proven false long ago, I mean the R.W.Wood’s experiment (1909), but your article unfortunately misses the cardinal points.

You can show that the “climate models” are bad, but this itself does not disprove the theory, so simple is that. Maybe you have forgotten what the AGW concept actually states. There are 2 basic points: the first one says “CO2 warms the planet” and the second one says “the planet has been warming”. The most important is the first one, because it makes the mankind look guilty.

Without regard to the R.W.Wood’s experiment, if you simply ask warmists to prove experimentally that CO2 indeed warms the surface (not just emits some IR), they fail immediately. There is apparently no scientific experimental proof, that the IR from a colder body somehow influences the temperature of a warmer body, and the air is mostly colder than the surface. They usually say that their assertion about CO2 or “back radiation” in general does not contradict the 2nd Law of thermodynamics, but this is irrelevant, because they simply can not prove experimentally, that this “back radiation” works. Unfortunately, in your article you reinforced this unproven assertion, uncritically referring to alleged “climate sensitivity” of CO2 and even worse, referring to the discredited IPCC as an authority.

The second point is about the alleged “global warming”. I am very sure you have never read an actual paper where this “global warming” is calculated. There are actually very few of them. I suggest you start with Hansen&Lebedeff-1987. I find what they are doing there is scientifically outrageous, it would be nice to read your opinion on that. The “global warming” is, however, a secondary point, the main one is “CO2 properties”.

Great to see Jonova back in action and punching hard.
Even the IPCC estimate of 1.2 C. increase of temperature due to doubling of CO2 is an overestimate based on temperatures mainly read in Cities affected by UHI over the last 70 years. The whole thing reminds me strongly of the ancient Pholgiston theory which hung on long after it was disproved.
As long as the scamming scientists grant money flows they will continue to churn out falsified propaganda for the CAGW cause.

Even the IPCC estimate of 1.2 C. increase of temperature due to doubling of CO2 is an overestimate based on temperatures mainly read in Cities affected by UHI over the last 70 years.

I don’t think this statement is completely correct – according to this post on Judith Curry’s site: CO2 no-feedback sensitivity a direct calculation predicts 1 degree, and models predict 1.2 degrees. (if the models were tuned with UHI-infested temperatures, though, then I guess there is some truth in what you are saying – I’m not sure about that) Curry is not convinced that either estimate is correct, though, and concludes:

This is how I would do the analysis to determine the CO2 no feedback sensitivity. The number would almost certainly be less than 1C.

How could you come to this site as long as you have and not picked up the distinction between,

[1] The direct warming effect attributable to a doubling of CO2 – absent all other factors, which is assumed to be equal to 1.2 degrees Celsius. and,

[2] The warming effect attributable to a doubling of CO2 with the impact of feedbacks factored in. The UN IPCC assume a net positive feedback that amplifies the 1.2 degrees of direct warming to “2 to 4.5″ degrees of warming.

My jaw is in my lap – do you read anything here???

BTW: There is no physical evidence that the assumption of a net positive feedback is correct, and much physical evidence to suggest that the real world feedbacks are net negative and will reduce the proposed direct warming effect of CO2 towards (closer too) 0.

I had a conversation with a friend over the weekend based on this very subject, they would be what you could call a luke warmer. When i explained to them that CO2 will only cause 1.2 C rise and it is WV that will give us the “global warming” the initial response was “so we have been lied to”.

The original latin used in 17thC. English Law is: Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis– “Exception confirms the rule in the cases not excepted”.

To give an example, one might come across a sign nailed to a particular tree in a wood that says: “You may not fell this tree”. This implies that all the trees on which there is no such sign *may* be felled. The sign implies the existence of the general rule that trees may be felled in the wood.

BTW, good to see you back, Jo. You know what they say– “what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger”.

PS: How do I get spaces between my paragraphs on the new board? Anyone Know?

Hi Michael,
You’re a brave man to suggest that Feynman’s statement doesn’t mean what he thinks it does.

I think you are conflating legal terms with scientific terms. You are correct with the legal interpretation as described by your excellent example. The sign (the exception) does give tacit consent to the felling of other trees, however this is not proof that the law (rule) is right or wrong, which is a matter of philosophy. The sign merely indicates that there is a law which determines, rightly or wrongly, which trees may be felled and which may not be felled.

Is the statement “All swans are white”, right or wrong? The statement is either true or it is false, it is either right (correct) or it is wrong (incorrect). Only the discovery of an exception can prove it wrong.

CO2 at 390 ppm means that there is only 1 CO2 molecule in every 2,564 that can retain heat energy passing through the atmosphere. This does not seem possible. Imagine a shed with 40 m long, by 80 m wide that had one sheet of insulation on it, how would that stop the heat escaping into the atmosphere? The answer is of course it can’t.

Further down the track, the change in the atmosphere from 280 ppm to 390 ppm has meant a change in the composition of the atmosphere of one molecule in 10,0000 which is replacing one clear, colourless, odourless molecule of Oxygen or Hydrogen with a clear colourless, odourless molecule of CO2. What this also means is that this change in the composition of the atmosphere also limits the absolute potential of the atmosphere to retain energy by 1/100000th of whatever heat unit you are using to measure the change. Obviously this is nothing, and cannot be measured.

What is even worse when we look at the policy to reduce our emissions across the world by 5%, we are advocating a policy that will change the composition of the atmosphere by 1 molecule in every 1,709,401 molecules. It is transparent that this will change the capability of the atmosphere to retain energy by only 1/1,709,401th, which is so small as to be indistinguishable.

Ergo, all the theories of AGW patently break the laws of mathematics and physics, and so are effectively falsified.

Thank God you are back Jo, I saw information in the Daily Telegraph yesterday that you had been hacked but were back “punchier”than ever. I had been trying in vain to get on, which left me in my usual confused state, so the information in the Tele averted another anxiety attack. The UN is Stalin’s Booby Trap to the gullible West, and they see Global Warming as their ticket to World Government, so, in their malicious minds, the End justifies the Means.

Might I point out a missing element here?
It matters not one jot to me how much the climate warms. My mother comes from the small town of Wick in Caithness, in the far North of Scotland. I spent a summer there in the mid 1980s, when they had a record heatwave. It reached 26.2 Celsius. A few degrees of extra warmth might be beneficial to some.

The extra warming is only concerning if there are adverse consequences, whether for human beings or the wider flora and fauna. To justify policy there needs to be likelihood of costly consequences. That needs people who can understand accounting for risks, and people who can ask the searching questions. Climate scientists are not qualified to ask for these tasks. They can only provide the forecasts for interpretation. In fact, given their track record, they are incapable of asking any demanding questions of things that they believe in, nor recognizing a scintilla of truth in any contrary viewpoint.

This all means that if the above analysis by Nova and Cox is over-turned, then the economic issue of doing something net positive about the predicted warming needs to be addressed.

If the Sun is not the cause of the slight increases in average temperature observed and it is truly CO2 “trapping heat” then we have the unusual paradox of a system radiating less while it is warming.

It must be radiating less to space if there truly is no other source of energy causing the warming.

So warming causes cooling is the paradox – as only things that are cooling radiate less.

I don’t think this phenomenum has ever been observed – I could be wrong but it just seems an impossible construct to me.

Further – the known measured properties of CO2 do not support any significant radiative forcing ability at even 100% let alone 0.04%.

The thermal conductivity of CO2 is about half that of air and I am damned if I can figure out a property like thermal conductivity can be determined experimentally without includin any so-called radiative effect.

As far as I can see a radiative forcing of a few watts/sq metre from as substance with a thermal conductivity of 0.087 W/m.K at 20 degrees C at 100% simply can only be negligible at 0.04% concentration.

Factor in the fact that soils amd water are at least ~1000 times more dense than air and the idea that gases can heat warmer surfaces like soils and especially water whilst most of the atmosphere is actually much colder just seems- well – ludicrous.

Surely James Hansen’s 2 w/sq metre radiative forcing due to CO2 must require a temperature difference of at least 136 K – 0.0146 W/m.K x 136 K = ~2 W – I know thermal conductivity is W/m.K but this is independant of area as the metre is the distance across which thermal conductivity is measured.

Even air at 0.024 W.m.K requires a temperature difference of ~83 K to deliver 2 W.

I have heard all the arguments about radiation being emitted and not knowing where it is going but whether radiation from a colder body warms a warmer body has yet to be demonstrated and seems to ignore well established properties like reflection, scattering etc. My eyes absorb lots of radiation daily without any perceived thermal effect.

If I am wrong please explain to me why – I really want to know why my logic is flawed if it is and am prepared to be educated. But I will not accept some simplistic model as I have seen as representing the “greenhouse effect” as these models take no account of other physical properties.

Show me why thermal conductivity of gases can be so low and yet they can somehow have this radiative forcing effect – especially when it is claimed Nitrogen, Oxygen and Argon do not contribute to the “greenhouse effect”.

“…the known measured properties of CO2 do not support any significant radiative forcing ability…”

The forcing ability is exhausted by around 200 ppm but the IPCC’s oversimplified forcing expression turns what should be a flattening curve into a straight line rise on a log-log graph that they projected without scientific basis:-

The IPCC makes no recourse whatsoever to the underlying science of radiative heat transfer. In that figure, Prof John Eggert produces the path length curve from the Leckner/Hottel body of work, that being (from Eggert’s references):-

I find it amusing that the last stand is taking place over supposed anthropogenic cryosphere effects with the most recent being the latest Arctic SIE “September Panic” (as Caleb Shaw puts it at WUWT).

Never mind that oceanic forcing attribution was established prior to 2006, climate science is still cranking out lightweight papers that try to peg the blame on fossil fuel emissions. An example of that is Notz and Marotzke 2012 that states (my emphasis):-

The most likely explanation for the linear trend [in sea ice decline] during the satellite era from 1979 onwards is the almost linear increase in CO2 concentration during that period.

This paper has been used as a prop by NZ’s Hot Topic in an NZ inter-tribal Hot Topic – Climate Conversations Group SIE spat. What Gareth Renowden at HT overlooks (as does N&M) is that without a corresponding DLR increase, that subjective attribution is void.

The obvious exercise is to compare observed Arctic DLR with say, aCO2 (or all Co2) forcing ising the IPCC’s forcing expression assuming it’s valid. It is not valid as Prof John Eggert shows using the Leckner/Hottel curves here:-

That figure is from Eggert’s ‘An Unsettling Look at the Settled Science of Global Warming’ series Parts 1,2 and 3 but that’s another story, let’s assume the IPCC expression is valid. If there is an Arctic DLR increase, the aGHG component must be separated from the other DLR components: clouds, water vapour and natural GHGs.

First the DLR:-

Figure 8. Annual averages of the downwelling longwave fluxes (W m–2) from 1980 to 2004 for the 60°–90°N region.

Even if we were to accept the IPCC CO2 forcing expression as valid, CO2 forcing only contributes 2.9% (0.029) of the measured average Arctic Ocean DLR.

We then have to separate that 0.029 CO2 contribution into a natural : anthropogenic ratio. Using a combination of Skeptical Science post and meteoLCD post referencing Salby and Spencer, the ratio seems to be about 96.2 : 3.8 (natural : anthropogenic).

How much does CO2 warm the surrounding air compared to the heat of combustion? I drive my car and along the way CO2 is emitted but heat is also generated and dissipated into the atmosphere. Is the heat that is generated from the combustion process less than the heat that results from CO2 acting as a greenhouse gas?

There’s a whole heap of heat being generated by combustion and we can certainly detect its local impact. But by comparison we cannot feel the warming effect of CO2 in a local setting. I always hark on about the CO2 concentration over vegetation in the early hours of the morning being many times higher than ambient CO2 concentration, but there is no appreciable warming effect. (In fact quite the opposite because early morning temperatures usually drop at the same time as local CO2 is at its highest concentration of the day.)

Surely there has been some warming due to the combustion of all kinds of things – not just coal and oil – but we humans burn lots of stuff.

Given the very real heat that is produced by very mechanical or energy consuming process I wonder if heat recovery rather than carbon sequestration is a better strategy. The consumption of electrical energy generated by renewals produces heat – even from your energy efficient LCD monitor.

When I drive my V8 or my V-twin they emit CO2 and a lot of heat. The CO2 is quickly gobbled up by the poor specimens of plants along the side of the road making them healthier and more vigorous and able to absorb even more CO2. But the heat is lost to the atmosphere.

Conversion to renewable energy sources will not address the direct output of heat. So heat recovery is the challenge.

You can do the calculation if you like, and it turns out (and it surprised me when I did it), that the contribution of the heat released when you burn the fuel is totally dwarfed by the extra heat trapped in the atmosphere by the CO2 released.

Of course, if must insist that there is no such thing as the “greenhouse” effect, feel free…

I want to see the calculations too. I have the weird notion that CO2 is not doing its job, but the heat generated from almost every human activity is affecting our surroundings. I mean, I am current 36.9 degrees C and the air around me is 18.5 so I am transmitting heat to my surroundings. (And that heat transfer is largely facilitated by water vapour (not by greenhouse gases). My computer and monitor are powered by electricity derived from renewables (hydroelectricity) but they are emitting heat to the environment.

Do it yourself. The AGW heating is of the order of Watts per square metre, so just take it to be 1 W/m^2, and multiply by the surface area of the earth, to get a rough idea of the total extra power trapped by greenhouse gases.

Then find (google…) the total power production for the earth, and assume that all of that ends up as heat. Of course you can add 60W for every human on the planet, and maybe multiply this by 100 to account for all other animals..

Compare the two. If they are close, you’d need to refine your methods for greater accuracy. But I think you’ll find one will dwarf the other, so you need no more than a back-of-the-envelope calculation.

You can do the same with geothermal energy. However you hardly need to. Just try sleeping on the ground on a cold night – there is not much heat coming from there!

>”The AGW heating is of the order of Watts per square metre, so just take it to be 1 W/m^2″

Whoa! That’s over decades, we’re talking about the radiated, conducted and ejected heat of an engine vs it’s CO2 emissions in g/km say. There is no way the re-emitted heat of a mere 168 g/km average for a Toyota Corolla (110 models) will even match – let alone eclipse – the ~30,000 Watt heat output of the engine.

That 168 grams will be dispersed over a kilometre into air with ~0.71 grams of CO2 per cubic meter. The 30 KW will be continuous output over the entire kilometre however.

>”Just try sleeping on the ground on a cold night – there is not much heat coming from there!”

Maybe in Australia but there’s other places around the world where you’ll have a different experience.

JB, I’ve just shown that the 30,000 Watts of constant heat output from combustion by a light car completely gazumps the miniscule 0.2 W.m@ of re-emitted energy from 168 gms of CO2 emitted from the car over a kilometre.

Tut tut. Ask Jo. Is she a moron? Jo acknowledges that CO2 does trap heat in the atmosphere. She differs from the warmists only in her opinion of how much temperatures will rise, and what effect this will have.

BTW, I find your comments so much more convincing when you use capitals

The contention that it takes but one failure of one key principle to disprove a theory has at least 2 prior caveats.
1. The principle has to be known to be integral to the operation of the system; and
2. The principle has to be capable of isolation from other principles so that its effect is not diminished or magnified by interactions with other parts of the system as a whole – that it, it has to act like an independent variable separated by nature, physics and/or math from other parts of the system.

Now, can we please try from some agreed selection of the most likely candidate in the present context?

Come on Cohers! Look at it like this. We pump a huge amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, and the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is steadily increasing. But it is only increasing by about half the amount we put there each year. So something is taking out of the atmosphere half the CO2 we put there.

We could start from the position that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere usually varies pretty slowly with time. There are processes like weathering of rocks that very gradually remove CO2 from the atmosphere. But basically, on a year to year time scale the planet inhales and exhales pretty much exactly the same amount of CO2. Le Chetalier’s principle tells us that if we increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from this equilibrium position, then the amount of CO2 absorbed by the oceans and vegetation will increase. And this is exactly what has happened. To the extent that these CO2 sinks have increased their annual uptake of CO2 by an amount of 50% of annual CO2 emissions.

But don’t worry, I hear Senor Don Salby, mounted on Rocinante, clattering away in search of wind turbines to fight…

are you familiar with the simulations done by Essenhigh?
(And the response fron Crawley)
Apparently there is an alternative explanation for the raise of the CO2 in the atmosphere:
driven by a natural change in equilibrium (the short residence time for CO2 molecules in the atmosphere or the upper sea surface support this)

Now Crawley says that his milk maid calculation “But it is only increasing by about half the amount we put there each year.” or some isotope ratio would prove anything.
By the same logic you could blame the yellow river as the
sole reason for the sea level rise: It adds water to the sea and we can follow the yellow dust spreading into the ocean.
Tracking one source is not enough, you have to fully understand the circle…
For example how much CO2 is transported by the golf stream and how has this changed since the LIA?

You can’t use it like that Cohers, otherwise nothing would ever happen because every forcing would be counteracted. Le Chetalier’s principle tells us the direction the system will go, but it doesn’t tell us how much. In the case of atmospheric CO2, it appears that an increase from 280pp to 390ppm leads the CO2 sinks to absorb about half of humanities emitted CO2 more.

John Brookes
October 3, 2012 at 4:25 pm · Reply
…
Look at it like this. We pump a huge amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, and the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is steadily increasing. But it is only increasing by about half the amount we put there each year. So something is taking out of the atmosphere half the CO2 we put there.

Logical fallacy there, JB — your argument could be used to “prove” that ANY CO2 source is ‘responsible’ for the atmospheric rise:

Phenomena “X” puts a ‘huge’ amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, and the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is steadily increasing.

Therefore, “X” is responsible for the increase of CO2.

Let “X” be:
Undersea volcanism;
Outgassing of the Tundra;
Decay in the rainforests;
Coal plants in China (see, that matches the increase — the rest of the world gets off scott free!);
Coal seam fires in Indonesia and China (equals industrial emissions);
etc., etc.

This is the ‘logic’ of a Nasrudin joke — except that you are expected to realize such logic is bogus, in a Nasrudin story. (But then, warmists don’t seem to be very conversant with logic — as Jo’s article shows.)

And, before you bring up the isotope argument, might I remind you that isotope analysis can’t distinguish between any source of carbon that comes from inside the Earth — mined by man or emitted by volcanoes. This ‘proof’ of AGW depends on the highly questionable claim that we understand and can quantify all other sources and sinks of CO2 — which, if true, would negate the requirement for the isotope ‘proof’ in the first place. (But circular reasoning is also a staple of AGW ‘science’.)

We could start from the position that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere usually varies pretty slowly with time.

Well you could — if you didn’t care much about facts. True, ice cores vary fairly slowly, probably because they represent a several hundred year averaging (due to diffusion plus an unknown decrease due to absorption) in actual atmospheric concentrations. Direct measurements and other proxies that don’t involve multi-century averaging, however, show much more variability.

One good thing about the AGW — government axis is that is is demonstrating that scientists aren’t any more logical or moral than anyone else. Indeed, the vast amounts of outcome-targeted funding may be selecting for AGW ‘scientists’ that are significantly less logical and moral than the average person.

One would have thought that the historical example of Lysencoism would have innoculated society from such scams — but then, you have to actually know something about history, not to mention some acquaintance with logic.

Exactly, there is no way to tell man-made from volcanic carbon dioxide.

Keeling was a joke, in less than two years of ‘data gathering’ he claimed to have shown a trend and concluded that man-made levels were rising – pretending to be measuring ‘pristine background levels of carbon dioxide’ from the top of the world’s highest active volcano, surrounded by active volcanoes on top of a great hot spot creating volcanoes in warm seas rocked by thousands of earthquakes every year.

Yeah, right.. If anyone believes that Keeling could actual measure this mythical ‘pristine background’ even if we could tell volcanic from fossil fuel they should take a look at the way they measure for it, straight arbitary – they decide on the cut off points between ‘volcanic’ and ‘man-made’; it’s such pathetic science it’s embarrassing.

To go with the bare-faced lie that we can tell the difference is the deliberate under-reporting of volcanic activity:

The estimation of worldwide volcanic CO2 emission is undermined by a severe shortage of data. To make matters worse, the reported output of any individual volcano is itself an estimate based on limited rather than complete measurement. One may reasonably assume that in each case, such estimates are based on a representative and statistically significant quantity of empirical measurements. Then we read statements, such as this one courtesy of the USGS (2010):

Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts.

In point of fact, the total worldwide estimate of roughly 55 MtCpa is by one researcher, rather than “scientists” in general. More importantly, this estimate by Gerlach (1991) is based on emission measurements taken from only seven subaerial volcanoes and three hydrothermal vent sites. Yet the USGS glibly claims that Gerlach’s estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes in roughly equal amounts. Given the more than 3 million volcanoes worldwide indicated by the work of Hillier & Watts (2007), one might be prone to wonder about the statistical significance of Gerlach’s seven subaerial volcanoes and three hydrothermal vent sites. If the statement of the USGS concerning volcanic CO2 is any indication of the reliability of expert consensus, it would seem that verifiable facts are eminently more trustworthy than professional opinion.

Really, Jo, aren’t you tired of being honest, scientifically accurate and right? Maybe you should just take $1 billion in carbon trading credits and go drink white wine with Al Gore. Ewww, just kidding.

An equivalent temperature anomaly for energy is obtained by subtracting energy radiated from the planet from energy added (as calculated from the time-integral of sunspot number (Wolf number)) and applying appropriate proportionality factors. The predicted temperature anomalies are produced by the rather simple procedure of adding this temperature anomaly for a year to the Effective Sea Surface Temperature (ESST) for that same year

This seems sensible given the Temperature/PDO+AMO+Sunspot Integral correlation is 0.96.

With a heat capacity for the total atmosphere equal to ~3 meter of water and an average temperature far below the average surface temperature there is no way you can warm Earth’s surface and oceans from the atmosphere.

Looking at the moon (same distance from the sun and same TSI as Earth) with an average temperature below 200K it is obvious we need a totally different explanation for our pleasant temperatures.

Nobody ever wondered where the temperature of the deep oceans came from? It’s ~275K, already 20K above the GHE effects 255K and much more above the moon’s average temperature.
Although in present time it is assumed not much of the enormous amount of heat available in Earth’s interior escapes, this has been very different in Earths’s history.
The oceans started out most probably as steam, only cooling down when the crust become thick enough to contain the geothermal heat. They have probably been re-heated several times in their history. Last time started some 125 million years ago, the creation of the Ontong Java Plateau. Some 100 million km^3 lava erupted, warming the oceans ~15K above present temperatures. They have been cooling since then, with some ups and downs along the way.
See:This study, especially image 9 out of 9
andOntong Java Plateau

So basically Earth is a “Blue body”, temperature ~275K, and all the sun is doing is keep a small layer of ocean at it’s current pleasant temperatures.
The atmosphere is only slowing the cooling of the surface towards space.
CO2 is most probably expediting this cooling in a moist/wet environment.

But the creation of the Ontong Java Plateau involved the release of ~100 million km^3 hot lava in ~1388 million km^3 ocean. Assuming the heat capacity of lava to be 1/4 that of water, and the temperature ~1000K above that of the deep oceans, this event alone has the potential to warm the oceans ~18K.
There are a lot more similar but smaller events following this one. The oceans have been re-heated in the Cretaceous, and cooling down sionce then.

The earths oceans have evaporated in the past due to meteor impacts, or so I’m led to believe.

Is another mechanism by which the oceans have been re-heated after their creation.

The real GHE is the reduction of surface emissivity, also possibly coupled convection as atmospheric GHG thermal-emission Poynting Vectors annihilate the UP PVs in that wavelength interval.

This analysis of coupled convection and radiation is based on all those experiments I did when I studied process engineering, and wondered what exactly was happening.

This is terra incognito for the likes of Trenberth et. al. who have dismissed the complexity by making the ‘black body’ assumption for the surface an entirely arbitrary boundary condition probably knowing at heart that it is a fantasy.

Perhaps these people should be arraigned for trial on a charge of Malfeasance in Public office, deliberately lying to further their political aims and to gain money by false pretences?

The real GHE is the reduction of surface emissivity, also possibly coupled convection as atmospheric GHG thermal-emission Poynting Vectors annihilate the UP PVs in that wavelength interval.

This is basically back to classical meteorology before radiation madness struck: sun heats surface, surface looses heat through the atmosphere to space.
But this does not explain our current temperatures. The sun is not delivering enough power. You need the pre-heated oceans for that.

With the surface temperatures explained by pre-heated oceans PLUS incoming solar, there is no GHE, zero. The atmosphere just transports the surface heat to space, only not as efficient as direct radiation to space.
The Environmental lapse rate is just a description of temperatures versus altitudes, how would this add any warming?
The Adiabatic lapse rates are just that, adiabatic, so the processes they are valid for will not add any warming to their surroundings.

the GHG thermal radiation from the atmosphere reduces surface emissivity so the impedance to heat transport from all sources rises.

If you mean: reduces the rate of cooling, I agree. Like the difference in cooling after sunset with a clear sky and a cloudy sky, but there is no warming of the surface by the atmosphere.
With an avg surface temperature of the oceans of ~290K without atmosphere they would radiate directly to space ~400W/m^2 (and start cooling down rapidly). The atmosphere reduces this to avg ~240W/m^2 at the top of the atmosphere.

I’m interested in the idea of “lapse rate warming”. Could you expand on that?

Not surprising really. It was only a matter of time before the warmista fabricated a pretext to do to the ARGO data what they’ve done to all the other historical temperature records that they got their dirty hands on.

That’s not what the link YOU provided says. It says the Argo data was not matching up with physics … “Unless you believe The Day After Tomorrow” and it did not match up with “the net flux of energy at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere”.

It goes on to say that it didn’t match the models either. “There was no established physical explanation for them, and climate models didn’t reproduce them.”

Why is it you don’t go on about how they found a warm bias in the XBT data? Why didn’t they cover that up rather than adjust the XBT data downwards and “hide the incline”. Conspiracy nutters never mention this one.

But I’m sure you have a great explanation on why faulty XBT data should be discard whilst faulty Argo data should be kept. Right???

Nah. I use it regularly to describe people, that when faced with data that no longer supports their own biased point of view, will turn to global cover-up conspiracy theories in order to preserve their own self-deception.

The results are more or less (perhaps slightly up) flat, no specific trend during the ARGO era. that’s 8 years with the OHC essentially flat while CO2 has increased by approximately 16 ppm – what gives?

The key problem you have is the mismatch between models (Theory) and measured data(Experiment) which is discussed here with specific reference to figure 5. In the presence of experimental data in disagreement with the Theory, normal scientists would admit that there was something wrong with the Theory.

“The oceans are absorbing more than 80 percent of the heat from global warming,”

Whoop-de-doo. The only sources of ocean heat are solar and geo. There’s no physical mechanism for atmospheric gasses to heat the ocean. The IPCC doesn’t present one (except for the “most likely” variety), NASA’s Hansen doesn’t, neither do Meehl and Trenberth at NCAR.

So if there’s no physical mechanism, there’s no anthropogenic mechanism either.

Light (longwave radiation) penetrates the water during the day and heats up the ocean. Heat (Shortwave radiation) penetrates although only a very tiny distance into water before it is absorbed. This reduces the heat gradient and thus the rate of loss of heat from the ocean is also reduced.

Light (longwave radiation) penetrates the water during the day and heats up the ocean.

What? Solar UV and IR-A/B short wave radiation penetrates the water to depth during the day and heats up the ocean

Heat (Shortwave radiation) penetrates although only a very tiny distance into water before it is absorbed.

Rubbish. Heat and radiation are forms of energy. Solar SW radiation (UV, IR-A/B) is a heating agent when it penetrates water, most effectively at about 1m. Non-solar longwave IR-C (DLR from clouds and GHGs) only penetrates about 10 microns. See Hale and Querry 1973:-

This reduces the heat gradient and thus the rate of loss of heat from the ocean is also reduced.

Rubbish again. The heat budget at the ocean surface is:-

Q = QSW – QLW – QS – QL

The effect of LWIR is to aid evaporation (QL) thereby cooling the upper skin of the ocean along with the other energy leaving the surface (sensible heat QS and radiation QLW), hence the term cool-skin.

The LWIR impact on QS is miniscule and QS is the minor heat loss component anyway, the major being QL and QLW. See ‘Heat budget of the ocean surface’:-

The equation for QS, (as stated in Lecture11.HeatFluxes.AtmosphCirc.pdf) is dependant upon the difference between the surface of the water and the temperatue of the air.

A greater difference will mean a greater flux.

A warmer air temp, means heat is lost from the ocean more slowly.

Thanks for providing the links and the equation to support my argument.

Not only that, you seem to think that just because IR is fully absorbed within the first nanometer, that the heat cannot penetrate any deeper. Do you realise that the energy is re-emitted – that it doesn’t just sit there forever? And that the emission doesn’t occur straight back up into the atmosphere? Just wondering – because you seem to be under that misconception too.

James
October 4, 2012 at 1:27 pm
Light (longwave radiation) penetrates the water during the day and heats up the ocean. Heat (Shortwave radiation) penetrates although only a very tiny distance into water before it is absorbed. This reduces the heat gradient and thus the rate of loss of heat from the ocean is also reduced.

What? The AGW claim from the comic cartoon KT97 and kin The Greenhouse Effect says that Shortwave, (near UV, visible and near infrared, but mostly visible) heats up land and oceans, that no longwave infrared from the Sun gets through the invisible undefined and unexplained barrier said to be like the glass of a greenhouse, and then the Shortwave heated land and oceans radiate out longwave infrared, (which in real physics is heat, also called thermal infrared).

This is the AGWScienceFiction meme: Shortwave in Longwave out.

It is utterly ridiculous, shortwave from the Sun cannot physically heat land and oceans. It takes the invisible longwave infrared from the Sun to heat land and oceans, this is the Sun’s thermal energy on the move to us. We’ve known this since Herschel. The Sun’s heat is tranferred to us in the thermal infrared wavelength.

Shortwave are not thermal energies, they are not hot, we cannot even feel them, they cannot heat matter.

It takes the Sun’s direct heat to heat matter, this is what we feel as heat, which raises our temperature, this is the Sun’s heat transferred by radiation, thermal infrared.

The AGWSF meme of the comic cartoon Greenhouse Effect of “Shortwave in Longwave out” is impossible in the real world.

AGWSF fictional fisics has taken out the real heat from the Sun which really does reach us and heats up matter, called Heat, and substituted shortwave called Light, which cannot and does not heat matter.

AGWSF has done this so they can pretend that any downwelling heat, thermal infrared, from the atmosphere is from ‘backradiation’ from the upwelling thermal infrared from the heated land and oceans.

The real heat from the Sun reaching us and warming us up has been excised from the Greenhouse Effect energy budget.

This is the real missing Heat Trenberth should be looking for..

Everyone promoting this fake fisics from AGWSF of “shortwave in longwave out” should take the science challenge here:

Show how visible light from the Sun actually physically heats land and water at the equator to get us the immense wind and weather systems we have.

To help you think about this, for example: It takes intense heating of land and water at the equator to get us our huge winds and weather systems – in the real world water is a transparent medium for visible light, visible light from the Sun can’t heat it, it is not absorbed but transmitted through unchanged.

It’s an interesting result – so at 2000 meters deep there is warming over a seven year period. Quite substantial warming by the look of it. What’s the mechanism for heat to get that deep while the upper layers do not appear to be warming?

No, they discarded data fromfaulty buoys. They knew they were faulty because there was no way physically possible for the data to be correct.

And how did they identify “faulty” buoys? Read this article where Josh Willis describes how he decided which buoys to ignore. (The title of the article is “Correcting Ocean Cooling”, which tells you pretty much everything you need to know.)

The only criteria for a buoy to be judged ‘faulty’ is that it showed cool water temperatures. No buoys were eliminated for showing warmer temperatures. No attempt was made to retrieve said ‘faulty’ buoys to verify their calibration (even though you know exactly where each buoy is when it surfaces, and it can be commanded to remain on the surface until retrieved).

The only reason Willis gives to eliminate these buoys is that they contradicted his colleagues’ MODELS of what SHOULD be happening. That a model of a complex system is based, in part, on physical law does not mean that anything violating the model also violates the laws of physics, as you naively claim — the model could be incorrect for a multitude of reasons not related to physical law.

A simple example: Models of the Sun are firmly based on physical theory and law. None of these models predicts that the equator of the Sun should rotate faster than the poles. Would you then make the claim that any observation of such differential rotation is “physically impossible” and should be rejected?
The observation that the Sun’s rotation rate decreases with distance from the equator is trivial to do (especially, using images from the SOHO space observatory), and is often done as a high-school science project.

What Willis did is simple data selection based on the desired outcome — otherwise known as “fudging” (or fraud). That he knew it was fraudulant is shown by his complete indifference to verification. This performance would have earned him an “F” on the Sophmore physics labs I used to grade back in the ’60s.

As mentioned below in another post with links provided, the buoys and data are audited to improve the quality of the data. It’s called filtering and it’s designed to throw out data which is obviously wrong. It’s a scientific process used in every single field of study.

For example, when satellites measure the height over land,occasionally their signal might be bounced back early if it were to reflect off an object which is in the air. This is obviously incorrect data because we known that land does not jump up 5 kilometers into the air overnight. Filters capture this incorrect data and exclude it from further processing.

I don’t suppose you noticed the reference in the lower right corner of the pretty graph? That’s right, from LEVITUS.

So let’s us hear your apology for lying, you did in fact post two links to Levitus.

Second, tell me straight (since you are prone to lying) is Levitus work that you link to based substantially on models? Or are you willing to live with me proving that your “empirical” data is simply model derived Bull Crap.

Nice One
October 6, 2012 at 7:25 am
As mentioned below in another post with links provided, the buoys and data are audited to improve the quality of the data. It’s called filtering and it’s designed to throw out data which is obviously wrong. It’s a scientific process used in every single field of study.

And, as any statistician could tell you (but few “climate scientists”), filtering the data increases the uncertainty and makes correspondence with reality that much more distant. (Sure looks pretty, though!)

Likewise Josh excluded data that was physically impossible.

You’ve been a little vague about why it was “physically impossible” — it seems you believe that because it is not in concert with satellite measurements of the Earth’s radiation budget. Perhaps you could trace the exact reasoning by which you come to this conclusion? (There is not a physically direct link so, no, you can’t.)

And, if two sets of measured data are inconsistent with each other, how do you decide which one is “physically impossible”? Apparently, you have already decided what is true and what is false, and act on that.

I don’t suppose you noticed the reference in the lower right corner of the pretty graph? That’s right, from LEVITUS.

So let’s us hear your apology for lying, you did in fact post two links to Levitus.

Second, tell me straight (since you are prone to lying) is Levitus work that you link to based substantially on models? Or are you willing to live with me proving that your “empirical” data is simply model derived Bull Crap.

Playing the usual “It’s models and they are always wrong” card hey?

BUT YOU DIDN’T BOTHER TO EVEN CHECK FIRST.

Levitus figures were produce using Argo data, they then compare those results in their study against other studies that are using models.

Our estimates are based on historical data not previously available, additional modern data, and bathythermograph data corrected for instrumental biases. We have also used Argo data corrected by the Argo DAC if available and used uncorrected Argo data if no corrections were available at the time we downloaded the Argo data.

Nice One
October 6, 2012 at 9:06 pm
…
You’re the one claiming Josh is incorrect. Go do your own investigation and let us know when you’ve found the evidence.

I see — so Willis decides to throw out the data from some ARGO floats because they don’t agree with his colleagues’ models. He (and you) make the claim that these floats are ‘faulty’.

Any Junior High science student could tell you that the next step is to retrieve several of the suspected floats and test them to see if they really are faulty. This is especially so, since retrieving them is simple — you know exactly (within 10 meters) where they are, and they can be commanded to stay on the surface until picked up.)

Apparently, however, Junior High level science is too much to expect from professional ‘climate scientists’ (or you, either). No, it’s up to me to prove Willis wrong. He got the answer he wants and has no further interest in seeing if he is right or not.

That you apparently think that this is good science merely shows your ignorance of science and the scientific method. If airplanes were designed this carelessly, it would be worth your life to ride in one.

Nice One indeed! Look, you know as well as I do that if the ocean heat data said it was decreasing, then it would have to be “adjusted” to show an increase, just like they did to the “inconvenient” satellite temperature data.

So basically, you have no legs to stand on, because the data either shows a decrease, or else its been nobbled. I don’t know why you keep on trying to fight, what with both your arms and legs chopped off, but then you’d be a typical delusionist warmist

Strange how Argo data suddenly becomes “flawed” in the eyes of “skeptics” when short term natural variation no longer hides the long term trend.

There is no evidence that the data is ‘flawed’. Note that the only complaint about it (from the AGW crew) is that it shows ocean cooling, not warming like their models insist. No attempt has been made to retrieve supposedly ‘flawed’ floats to verify their calibration, which would be the obvious next step if they really thought that they were wrong.

Given the absence of any physical evidence (such as actual testing of a float) that the floats are in error, I’m perfectly willing to accept their data — which shows the oceans are losing heat at a rate ~50 times as fast as they supposedly gained it over the last century.

There are, in fact, a number of engineers working on calibrating, testing, and perfecting the floats — that’s why they work as well as they do.

Willis, however, used none of this information in deciding which floats to remove from his data set. According to his own testimony, his sole criteria for rejecting a float’s data was that it conflicted with his colleagues’s models. He reported no attempt to correlate his rejected floats with any other calibration data. He rejected no floats that were reading suspected anomolously high temperatures — only low temperature ones.

His goal, pure and simple, was to get the ‘right’ answer (coincidentally, I’m sure, also the answer that would most likely get him follow-on grants), whatever he had to do to the data to get there.

Still wrong, [still snip. too bad you are late to this post. Since the thread is now five months old you must post at the end of the thread. Please do cut and paste anything earlier and bring it forward.] ED

John Brookes
October 4, 2012 at 11:02 am · Reply
Nice One indeed! Look, you know as well as I do that if the ocean heat data said it was decreasing, then it would have to be “adjusted” to show an increase, just like they did to the “inconvenient” satellite temperature data.

You’re straining (in vain) for relevance here, John. The actual data shows ocean heat decreasing. Only after arbitrarily removing “too cold” buoys does the remaining data show ocean heat constant. “Nice One” would like us to believe that a cold-reading buoy is “physically impossible”, but can only use models and other, possibly flawed, measurements as “proof”.

Seems to me that the Nova and Cox paper is a very good summary of the state-of-the-art.
I have a little disagreement with-
…. The vast funding which is now being directed to ‘solving’ global warming should be redirected to researching hypotheses which are consistent with empirical data and confirmed by observable evidence …..

Better- ‘the vast funding’ (and yes it is!) should be returned to those from whom it was taken.

This is not the case. The climate models predict higher temperatures, but that is not the same as predicting global disaster. The global disaster part is what some alarmists assume would result from higher temperatures. However, higher temperatures (as well as higher CO2 levels) are more likely to be beneficial to the biosphere of our planet, so let’s hope that the climate models are right and that we will approach another Holocene climate optimum.

I’m sorry but I think this paper demonstrates absolutely nothing.
The authors use 4 techniques to analyse 5 years of Argo data.
The first technique (computing trends from monthly “symmetric box filtered” data is effectively committing a cardinal sin. That is, all the data points except the extremes are represented 12 times, and the extreme results (2009 is much warmer than the other years) are less represented. Hence that technique produces a spuriously significant trend. Their other three techniques produce no significant trend at all – spanning from -0.34 to +0.14 (units 10^20 J/Yr). Of these the simplest and best is merely to do a trend of the annual average giving a regression on just 5 points. And this gives -0.04 +/- 0.15. Or pretty much, nothing useful.
They then compare their study with four others. Of these three show effectively the same results, that is, nothing. The fourth is the only one to study ocean heat content below 700m and it shows a strong positive trend. (Although I have not read that paper yet – and may not get time to, I hope that the methods are better than this paper).
In short, the paper ought not have passed peer review and I certainly would not cite it.

No, it relegates outliers to a statistical position commensurate with that statistical outlier position.

The short time frame used by Knox and Douglass is relevant since one of the primary purposes of the Knox paper was to disavow the findings of the previous Lyman paper which found “a robust global warming trend of 0.63 ± 0.28 W/m2 for Earth during 1993–2008, calculated from ocean heat content anomaly (OHC) data.” Knox’s findings specifically contradict that finding. Part of that contradiction is Knox’s addressing the controversial jump in OHC which occurred during the transition to the ARGO bouys in 2002-2003; that jump is depicted here:

What this means is that OHC before 2003 is essentially unreliable; Knox and Douglass confirmed this by showing a correlation between OHC, Fohc, and OLR, Ftoa; before 2003, the correlation between Fohc and Ftoa was poor, after 2003 it is good. Knox and Douglass is a groundbreaking paper.

No, it relegates outliers to a statistical position commensurate with that statistical outlier position.

OK. I think a box filter on a 1D time series is just a running average? It looks like there’s a difference in emphasis between people who do feature extraction where a feature signal is presumed to exist and suppression of noise is good, and those who do hypothesis testing, where you are asking whether a feature is provably present, and you need to compare the variance due to signal with that due to noise. Using a running average can potentially “sharpen” the underlying trend, but it does so at the cost of fooling you as to the error bounds on your estimate. Feel free to disagree, or to correct my understanding of box filter.
So when I wrote “That is, all the data points except the extremes are represented 12 times, and the extreme results (2009 is much warmer than the other years) are less represented.” I did not mean statistical extreme as your response indicates you thought I did; I meant the time-wise extremes, the start and end points – it’s interesting but irrelevant to my objection that the fifth and last year of the series is much higher. I see it as telling that one method is so much at odds with three others used by the same authors.

The short time frame used by Knox and Douglass is relevant since one of the primary purposes of the Knox paper was to disavow the findings of the previous Lyman paper …

I had a look at the time series and I can see the issue. This brings back all the issues of heterogeneity and pos-hoc adjustments. But, if you know there’s an issue it must be addressed.
I also hadn’t thought too much about the bigger issue being addressed – I’ll have to ponder this a bit more.
None the less, I can’t see it as ground breaking. Provocative perhaps – but no paradigm shift. Better instrumentation always means that older measurements and estimates need to be reconsidered (as do the new ones).

A good illustration of the fiction that passes for science these days, is the paper “Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget” by J.T. Kiehl and Kevin E. Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, Vol.78, No.2, February 1997, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, which claims to be an update of the Earth’s energy budget using new satellite data and improved models for estimation. The crux of the paper is summarised in Fig. 7 on page 206, which figure is also reproduced on page 94 of IPCC Fourth Assessment Report “Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis” under “Frequently Asked Questions”.

The Figure starts on the left-hand side, with the generally accepted level of radiation input from the Sun of 342 Watts per square metre. Of this, it shows 107 W/m^2 being reflected back into space and 67 W/m^2 absorbed by the atmosphere. This leaves 168 W/m^2 of radiation impinging on the Earth’s surface and thereby raising its temperature. Curiously this is the amount of radiation that would emanate from a black body with an emissivity of 0.7 and a temperature of -18 degrees Celsius, the very temperature that the climate scientists claim would be that of the Earth’s surface if it were not for the presence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Without any additional energy input whatsoever, the incoming 168 W/m^2 generates 492 W/m^2 of outgoing energy from the surface consisting of 24 W/m^2 for thermals, 78 W/m^2 for evapo-transpiration and 390 W/m^2 of surface radiation. Clearly we all have our solar panels and hot water systems upside-down. They should be facing the ground and receiving its radiation, amounting to 2.3 times that coming in from the Sun.

The Figure then shows the outgoing energy of 492 W/m^2 less 40 W/m^2 (passing directly to space) plus 67 W/m^2 incoming from the Sun, a total of 519 W/m^2, interacting with greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to create 324 W/m^2 of back-radiation to the Earth’s surface. This is a factor of 1.9 times greater than the incoming Sun’s radiation without any additional energy source required. Clearly solar panels are receiving 168 plus 324 W/m^2 of radiation for the generation of electricity or hot water, that is, a factor of three times greater than the industry claim. Either their efficiency is only one third of that claimed by marketers or they are failing to advertise this enormous benefit?

Furthermore, the clever greenhouse gases know to only emit radiation in the direction of the Earth’s surface instead of wastefully radiating into the usually accepted complete spherical surface. This conveniently means there is no distortion to the amount of outgoing radiation from the top of the atmosphere which would only upset the balance of radiation in and out.

As the incoming 168 W/m^2 radiation from the Sun is generating 324 W/m^2 of greenhouse gas back-radiation into the Earth’s surface, the whole system must be self-sustaining so that, once started, the sunshine ceases to be relevant. Our solar panels obviously do not need back-up batteries to store electricity or boosters for hot water at night as there is plenty of incoming back-radiation to keep them functional night and day.

That this should be the accepted wisdom promulgated by the IPCC to the World’s leaders and public is a disgraceful reflection on the state of science today and the integrity of those who practice this art under the guise of science.

That’s right John, I do not understand how such an absurd figure from aclaimed climate scientists could appear in a supposedly peer reviewed scientific journal and then be reproduced in an IPCC report that purports to publish the current state of scientific knowledge.

Happily, I am not alone. Gerlich and Tscheuschner, 2009, under 3.7 “The assumption of radiative balance” state at page 59, quote “Hence the popular climatologic “radiation balance” diagrams describing quasi-one-dimensional situations (cf. Figure 23) are scientific misconduct since they do not properly represent the mathematical and physical fundamentals.” end of quote.

Thank you, Bevan, for the very clear analysis of the absurdity created by the impossible AGW fictional fisics of ‘”shortwave in longwave out” and the thermal infrared beam from the Sun blocked by an unexplained invisible barrier greenhouse glass unable to get through to heat the Earth’s surface’, but, included in their upwelling and downwelling measurements from the atmosphere anyway, which they call ‘backradiation’.

They still take this comic cartoon Greenhouse Effect energy budget seriously because they still think visible light from the Sun capable of doing the work of the actual directly received heat from the Sun which they’ve blocked out, excised to create their fictional world. They don’t know it’s missing and all they have is visible light to do the work.

How can they have been so brainwashed to believe that the Sun’s direct thermal energy doesn’t reach us? Have they never heard of Herschel? I could be wrong here, but I think Trenberth is genuinely puzzled about his missing heat..

When exactly did they stop teaching that the heat we feel from the Sun is the invisible thermal infrared? And stop teaching that Light is not a thermal energy?

Who the heck created this absurd blocking of the Sun’s heat and swapping of properties and processes…?

Someone who knew real world physics and the difference between Heat and Light very well indeed to be able to exercise this sleight of hand to create a scenario for the non-existant thermodynamically impossible ‘backradiation’ with its intrinsic perpetual motion.

Myrrh, a possible part-answer to your question is to be found in the report – climate Change, The IPCC Scientific Assessment 1990. On page XIII, it refers to “… solar radiation …. the short-wave, visible, part of the spectrum … balanced by outgoing …… long-wave invisible infrared energy ..”.

Further along it states”… short-wave solar radiation can pass through the clear atmosphere …. but long-wave terrestrial radiation emitted by the warm surface of the Earth ….”. Then at pages 47-48 it declares “… incident solar radiation (at wavelengths between 0.2 and 4.0 microns) ……. thermal infrared region (4-100 microns) …”.

This appears to be a deliberate deception which has been so successful that the public now believe the Sun emits ultraviolet and visible light while the warmed Earth emits infrared with 4 microns being the boundary between the two. This is very convenient as it is at about this point where the amplitude of the spectral radiance from the Sun diminishes to less than the amplitude of the longer wavelengths emitted from the Earth. This deception is continued years later in the Kiehl and Trenberth paper where the reference is always to incoming shortwave flux and outgoing longwave flux as if the two do not overlap.

Gerlich and Tscheuschner, 2009, tell us the true situation, namely, that the Sun’s radiation is defined as :
ultraviolet 0 to 380 microns 10.0%
visible light 380 to 760 microns 44.8%
and infrared 760 to infinity 45.2% of total radiation.
The incoming Sun’s radiation is 3.5 times greater in intensity than the outgoing Earth’s radiation, hence the Sun’s infrared is 1.6 times greater in intensity than the Earth’s radiation and experiences the same atmospheric absorption spectra as the Earth radiation. This means that increased atmospheric absorption of the Earth’s radiation implies decreased incoming radiation from the Sun and a proportionately cooler Earth, if back-radiation takes place in accord with the Greenhouse Global Warming hypothesis.

The very notion of a “global average temperature” as a measure of warming is extremely flawed. It disregards atmospheric humidity and phase changes, as well as ground enthalpy.

Worse, every rise in atmospheric temperature is taken by AGW ‘science’ to indicate warming, when in many cases, it merely is a sign that additional heat is exposed to the 4 degree Kelvin temperature of outer space, resulting in higher radiative losses. It’s like estimating the population of Denver by counting people at the bus station.

AGW arguments often boil down to a post hoc fallacy: people burn coal, then global temperature went up, therefore people caused the warming.

It could just be that CO2 past a certain point in fact has a 0 warming effect. In fact, the real effect is likely that it simply spreads heat around the globe, and more CO2 simply spreads the heat more evenly. But when you look at the very cold regions where there is almost no water in the atmosphere to begin with, or the desert regions, you do not in fact see any observable evidence that the air is any warmer than it was in the past with respect to CO2 increases. These are where you would see it best, particularly if it replaces H2O which has a much wider bandwidth of absorption than CO2.

Of course, just a few months back anyone saying this sort of thing was branded crazy and stupid on this website.

Even RealClimate acknowledged back in 2006 that a doubling of CO2 can only reduce the temperature gradient of the ocean by .002C. Anything more is stuff dreams are made of.

If CO2 can warm the oceans to any measurable degree, it would show up in the SST first. Maybe that sneaky heat just bypassed the upper meter of water and with warp speed went to 2000m without anyone noticing.

According to Reynolds OI SST, ocean temperatures have been flat for 15 years and cooling at ~.06C/dec since 2001. RSS TLT shows a similar trend, yet a few out there are trying their hardest to convince themselves that actually global warming has not only not slowed, but is ramping up just as models predicted.

Thanks for the prompting, this is EXACTLY what I meant by a reduction of the gradient.

BTW, your 0.002C is referring to the change in SST from short term change in LW radiation, not to be confused (as you seem to be) with a long term change in ocean temp from a suststained increased level of LW radiation.

If CO2 can warm the oceans to any measurable degree, it would show up in the SST first. Maybe that sneaky heat just bypassed the upper meter of water and with warp speed went to 2000m without anyone noticing.

It doesn’t need to rush down at warp speed. If the heat from a 100m column of water travels downward by 1m, then the water at 101m increased by getting the heat that was previously at the 100m mark.

According to Reynolds OI SST, ocean temperatures have been flat for 15 years

The problem you have Nice One (apart from the ability to determine a 15 yr period) is that there’s no correlation between the miniscule anthro component of DLR and SST (or total DLR and SST, or DLR and SAT either) i.e. CO2 has no control over DLR whatsoever and therefore no control over SST.

But your chart starting 1950 still shows SSN controlling the short-term rise and fall of SST. The long-term overall rise in temperature and solar activity (TSI) started way back at the Maunder Minimum i.e. the level of solar activity is greater now than it was then and the level over 1950 – 2012 is greater than 1900 – 1950. Sure there are fluctuations but the effect is that OHC rises according to solar input, oceanic thermal lag, transport currents and oscillations that take years, decades and centuries to work out.

Now that the sun has gone quiet (declining solar input) and a grand minimum is predicted, we can expect to see OHC decline over the next few decades starting in the upper layer. Given UKMO EN3 OHC differs in sign from NODC over the ARGO era, that process may already have begun.

The analogy is like heating a pot of water – turn the element up the water heats up, turn the element down the water stops heating up and begins to lose heat.

Rubbish; the AGW measure of TOA forcing of 1Wm-2; Levitus find a forcing of 0.27 Wm-2; do you dispute that? The paper has reduced the AGW effect by over 1/3; what has “pressure drift” got to do with that?

I’m sure you’re almost ready to post your detailed findings on why adjustments to data were invalid AND how it affects OHC.

Waiting for what? I already replied — your link documents the efforts of the engineers who designed the floats to calibrate and debug them. Because of their design, and the efforts to improve them, there is no doubt that they are very good machines.

As I have also documented (and you have failed to respond to), by his own admission Willis used none of this calibration data to decide which floats to remove from his data set — he only removed floats which contradicted his colleagues’ models (by showing too much warming). You have bizarrely characterized this as “removing data that was physically impossible”, without the slightest effort to justify this claim.

It would be harder to find a clearer example of data fudging than that described by Willis himself. Amazingly, he seems to be completely ignorant of the fact that his actions negate any conclusions he might draw (an ignorance apparently shared by yourself).

As I mentioned before, this level of misconduct would have earned him an “F” on a Sophmore physics lab — but that was when the scientific method was taken seriously. Today, apparently, the ‘game’ is all about pleasing the funding agencies. As Eisenhower foresaw, government funding of science has produced a captive flock of “scientists” willing to do whatever it takes to keep getting funded.

David Stockwell’s paper on how to improve the methodology for adjusting the raw temperature data or for adjusting for missing temperature data is distinct from computer modelling where an algorithm is employed based on various assumptions about AGW, CO2, clouds and the like to predict future climate ‘scenarios’.

Until James can demonstrate that he understands that distinction I suggest he be put in the time-wasting corner.

James, I don’t even list “69″ Stockwell et al under the section titled “Observations disprove models” which is the point of this post. In any case, Two component models and small mathematical models are nothing like GCM’s.

Furthermore, if ONE Global Climate Model was verified — if it produced useful predictions (that’s in advance and all…:-) ) I’d be impressed and more likely to consider it a useful tools in unravelling our climate, assessing risk benefits, and in making policy decisions. The longer the timespan and the more detailed it worked, the more weight I would put on it.

While there are 22 models that all fail on many points, on many scales, for different time spans, I trust none of them, and adding up their errors into an ensemble-of-mistakes is useless.

Nice One
October 11, 2012 at 10:37 pm · Reply
And what do you use to forecast the climate?

What is your point here, N.O.? That we MUST forecast the climate, therefore we HAVE to use whatever is available, no matter how bad it is?

The fact is, currently we can’t forecast the climate, anymore than we can forecast the weather (beyond a short time horizon).

The scientist who started the whole climate modeling game, Edward Lorentz, came to the conclusion that weather (and climate, which is aggregate weather) belonged to a special class of phenomena which, although deterministic, couldn’t be predicted (beyond a short time) due to extreme sensitivity to initial conditions. His studies were the start of Chaos Theory, the study of mathematical (and physical) systems that followed this pattern.

Regarding the climate system, he coined the term “Butterfly Effect” to dramatize this — the effect of a butterfly flapping it’s wings could make the difference beteen a hurricane forming or not forming a few years later.

It has not been proven whether climate is a chaotic system or not. However, if it IS chaotic, then all attempts to model it will be doomed to have near zero predictive skill beyond a short time horizon.

Since this is true for all current climate models, the chaotic climate hypothesis remains a strong possibility.

BobC.
Chaotic systems have the characteristic that their short term behaviour is unpredictable, but that their long term behaviour can be characterised. Chaotic systems generally do not run out of control but have behaviours dominated by

This is amongst some of the most beautiful mathematics I know of. Are not these graphs lovely?

Climate models are state/transition models – dependent on initial conditions and on intermediate states. To me that’s a recipe for chaos, and if you look in any climate modeller’s library you will find many books on non-linear dynamics.
But if indeed climate is chaotic (as are the models), what this means is that aberration over the short term does not preclude long term predictive power.

The biggest issue for models that I see is that planners need good local information at regional scale and within managable time horizons. I certainly agree that AOGCMs are not so good for that – it is not their role, nor their expectation. There are other options.
But saying “it’s all chaos” and giving up is precisely the wrong thing to do. To say “errors accumulating errors” is to ignore the deep meaning of non-linear dynamics for a cheap shot.

But note also, the tipping point/flipping point concept which comes from the same theory. If we are in a climate of strange attractors, then we can flip from attractor to attractor very quickly, from state to state, with little warning. We also know things are changing and we have some knowledge as to why. If you invoke chaos to demonstrate that we cannot predict the future, surely it follows that changing the present state absolutely must put us at risk of a “flip” for which we are not prepared.You cannot invoke chaos to provide reassurance.

jiminy
October 12, 2012 at 8:20 am
BobC.
Chaotic systems have the characteristic that their short term behaviour is unpredictable, but that their long term behaviour can be characterised. Chaotic systems generally do not run out of control but have behaviours dominated by attractors.

The characteristics of Earth’s climate system (for the last 400,000 years anyway) seems to be dominated by a pair of attractors: Ice ages, lasting an average of 100,000 years, and interglacials lasting from 2,000 to 10,000 years. (We are about 11,000 years into the current interglacial.)

The ice ages have a minimum temperature of about 10 degrees below the maximum of the interglacials. We are still over 2 degrees cooler than the average maximum of the last 3 interglacials.

One thing you cannot predict about chaotic systems is exactly when they will switch between attractors, nor can you predict when a new attractor will appear.

A reasonable conclusion to draw from this data would be that we are likely to enter a new ice age sometime in the range of a few years to a few thousand years.

***
So, what does the AGW hypothesis predict?

1) That ice ages are done — there is no longer a “cold attractor” in the Earth’s climate system.

2) That temperatures are set to climb far beyond anything reached in the last half-million years (even though we aren’t within 3 degrees of the maximum over that time yet). Temperatures will continue climbing, perhaps to a level not seen since the Mesozoic era.

Bold predictions, indeed. How would one show that the AGW hypothesis was right and the apparently chaotic climate system of the Earth is now predictable? There is only one way, and that would be to demonstrate the predictive skill of the AGW hypothesis. Currently, the demonstrated predictive skill of climate modeling is statistically indistinguishable from zero. (See also Jo’s articles on this.)

The only reasonable conclusion to draw is that the AGW hypothesis is a lot of (completely unsubstantiated) hot air being promoted for reasons completely divorced from scientific investigation.

Your claim that chaotic systems can be predicted in the long term is somewhat deceptive. As an example, my long-term prediction for the temperature of Colorado Springs is that it will vary within the range of -40C to 40C, with daily and yearly oscillatory components. I am 100% confident that this prediction will be correct.

However, this is not what most people would consider a “prediction”, and is definitely not what the AGW proponents put forth.

Apols if this appears twice, I may have not actually posted comment this morning

BobC,
First of all, to work through each of your references may take more than a few hours. I’ll do the best I can but please understand there’s only so much time, and there are many more necessary tasks in the short term than to-ing ad fro-ing a reference bounce. Generally I find that by the time I’ve done the reading coded some stuff and cross checked many days have passed and this site has had its focus shifted and gone chasing some other wild goose in a cloud of echolalia.
Also please accept that I’m travelling out of state and I don’t have my old texts or many papers with me.

I read (ok scanned) the Koutsoyiannis ITIA paper previously.
1. If one cites Popper (para 1 sentence 1) (“As falsifiability is an essential element of science (Karl Popper), many have disputed the scientific basis of climatic predictions on the grounds that they are not falsifiable or verifiable at present.”) one needs to read “The Logic of Scientific Discovery” in full and his subsequent work – few do. A shame because it’s worth reading for so many reasons, and LOSD can be found in PDF format.
here.
Note page 26, his “For I do not demand that every scientiﬁc statement must have in fact been tested before it is accepted. I only demand that every such statement must be capable of being tested;…”
Popper’s views, more than most people’s, were subject to rigorous internal review and revision. A book worth reading is “The Self and its Brain – Eccles and Popper” where his outline of inductive reasoning recognises the limits of the sentence I quoted and goes on to deal (rather soto voce) with how science deals with complex phenomena (such as the brain) that are in practice unfalsifiable.
2. Back to Koutsoyiannis. Is it reasonable to pose a falsifiability framework as they propose? I don’t believe so. Did they succeed? I don’t believe so. Note Frame 2 of the slides
“These can be sought on existing long time series of the past and testing of
GCM performance in reproducing past climatic behaviours.” Which keys us into the usual muddle – that a side by side comparison of a model and observed time series constitutes a valid test. Yet nothing in the design or proper use of a model allows that. Frame 5, “Production of time series for the station location based on best linear estimation, i.e. optimizing the weight coefficients λ1, λ2, λ3, λ4(with λ1+ λ2+ λ3+ λ4= 1) in a linear relationship…” is guaranteed to fail validity for all but Alice Springs, Manaus and Khartoum. There are much better downscaling techniques.Frame 20. “…GCMs generally reproduce the broad climatic behaviours at different geographical locations and the sequence of wet/dry or warm/cold periods on a mean monthly scale. …”, is good news. The rest of this slide essentially proves that interpolative techniques are pretty poor. I agree and always have done. That’s a message I wish more impact groups would take on board, but of itself it does not invalidate climate models overall.

You say

One thing you cannot predict about chaotic systems is exactly when they will switch between attractors, nor can you predict when a new attractor will appear.

That’s true enough as far as I know for most practical cases. Now I run into the problem of not having my paper library. There are papers by Ott, Ditto, Pecora, Yorke and others on controlling chaos, I think it was Ott and Pecora published in Nature in early 1990s. The idea being that with a good strategy one could perturb chaotic systems using tiny adjustments, and force them onto chosen attractors. I and I guess many others since realised that if you had an model of a chaotic system then its difference from observed would also be chaotic and perhaps you could use the same strategy to nudge the model differences, iteratively building a system which characterised the system. The chaotic system I had available was heart beat intervals. The goal was to be able to assess the responsiveness of the heart (non-chaotic hearts are moribund) The work is still incomplete due to state and federal cuts, and my need to support a family. This was a long winded way of saying that what you say may yet prove to be not necessarily true.

A reasonable conclusion to draw from this data would be that we are likely to enter a new ice age sometime in the range of a few years to a few thousand years.

No. I have to insist that a more reasonable conclusion is “In the absence of human intervention or other external causes, we would be likely …”

So, what does the AGW hypothesis predict?

1) That ice ages are done — there is no longer a “cold attractor” in the Earth’s climate system.

Nope. It seriously says nothing about it. It says we are nudging (with tiny adjustments) the climate system towards what is likely to be some sort of tipping point.

2) That temperatures are set to climb far beyond anything reached in the last half-million years (even though we aren’t within 3 degrees of the maximum over that time yet). Temperatures will continue climbing, perhaps to a level not seen since the Mesozoic era.

Yep. But a real issue is the increasingly non-predictable short term. Surely it’s obvious that most meteorology is based on (and validated against) a large observational dataset, and the day to day transitions of the past are a large part of predicting tomorrow from yesterday.
Yet right now, there are to all intents and purposes, no yesterdays based in a world of previously unobserved arctic temperatures (fill in millions of other records here), from which to infer tomorrows.
It stuns me that people find comfort in this.

Now this post is way too long. I have things to do, and I cannot comment on your other references until I’ve at least read them.

BobC,
First of all, to work through each of your references may take more than a few hours. I’ll do the best I can but please understand there’s only so much time, and there are many more necessary tasks in the short term than to-ing ad fro-ing a reference bounce.

Jiminy, you’re going into far more detail than I anticipated. I also have time constraints and I agree that this forum’s comment section may not be the most effective place for this level of discussion.
There are a lot of guest posts on Jo’s site and that is probably the best place for that kind of detail. You may want to read some of the archives, especially by David Evans and people who co-author posts with Joanne. Perhaps you can write your own.

Anyway, here are a couple of quick takes (before I have to split):

1) The Koutsoyiannis ITIA paper is one of many where people have tried to measure the predictive skill of climate models. It undoubtedly has some flaws. I won’t link others at this time as I would be worried you would actually read them all and get nothing else done

2) I think the idea of controlling chaos — either the reality, or the model — is very interesting. It presumes, however, that you actually have a valid model and only lack the highly (infinitly?) precise boundary data to initialize it. The problem for AGW is there is no real model of climate. A real climate model could produce realistic-looking (if not actually accurate) mode changes between ice ages and interglacials, as well as having similar behavior in each mode. Current GCM models may have realistic-seeming weather patterns, but are totally incapable of producing phenomena that look like the Holocene (Little Ice Age, Medieval Warm Period, Roman Warm Period, Holocene Optimum, the steady decline of temperature on average over the last 3,000 years, etc.)The Climate Science community has, instead, taken the path of trying to claim that these swings didn’t occur (Michael Mann’s ‘Hockey Stick’, etc.) This does not give me a lot of confidence in the rest of their ‘science’.
As far as modeling Grand Ice Ages and Interglacials, GCMs are completely impotent. (Before warning us of “tipping points”, shouldn’t they have at least a crude model that demonstrates one?)

3)

“So, what does the AGW hypothesis predict?

1) That ice ages are done — there is no longer a “cold attractor” in the Earth’s climate system.

Nope. It seriously says nothing about it.

This has been one of James Hansen’s constant claims — it is even in his new book. So, what are you referencing by ‘it’? I would have to say that spokesmen of Hansen’s status DO speak for the AGW hypothesis, and what they claim is therefore a part of its predictions. If you would like to argue for a rational (rather than a “Chicken Little”) AGW hypothesis, you would find many here who would agree with you. That’s not what we face in the real world, however.(This might be a good topic for a post.)

4)

Yet right now, there are to all intents and purposes, no yesterdays based in a world of previously unobserved arctic temperatures (fill in millions of other records here), from which to infer tomorrows.
It stuns me that people find comfort in this.

Perhaps this picture of US submarines Seadragon and Skate rendezvousing at the North Pole in 1962 in open water will help you recover. This is just one of hundreds of similar photographs taken over the last half century — many by tourists on ice breaker tours to the Pole. The NorthWest Passage has been sailed numerious times for a century. Also, apparently the Vikings could sail directly to what is now the W. shore of Greenland by going through the channels of the archipelago that the southern tip of Greenland consisted of — no such islands are evident now, as they are covered by the ice cap. (We know this from the sailing instructions used to get to the Greenland colony. These instructions changed a number of years before the colony failed, directing ships to pass around the southern tip instead. Many Viking farms are still in permafrost, and some are still emerging from the ice cap.)

I guess that’s a complement of sorts. Thanks. but … The devil is in the detail my mother used to say. I learn stuff by chasing down data sets and either doing back of envelope checks or trying out methods of my own and seeing what breaks. And there are a number of papers published which, when you look, undermine one of more of their own tenets or conclusions. The Douglass and Knox paper I dissed (and on which SkS published a detailed rebuttal of a week later), was in my opinion one of these. The Watson sea level rise paper is another. It seems to say that sea level has stopped rising, supported by a graphic that clearly shows recent acceleration.

On measuring predictive skill. I have no problem with that idea. It’s absolutely necessary. But complex models of that sort can easily produce more than 100 prognostic and diagnostic climate variable outputs, at each of around a million grid points, for each model day, and almost all of these are averages which need to be downscaled to get useful information at point scale. Storage limits in the past meant that only weekly or monthly averages of only a selection of climate variables could be archived. The devil is in the downscaling!
Bear in mind that many models have 360 or 365 day years. Modellers may even tell you that the smallest usefully discernable feature is about 8 degrees, bigger than Tassie. All this is not news.
None the less, models do get a lot right. The do predict the differential northern hemisphere warming, south west pacific warming, roughly the long term global warming trend. (And I’ll concede that there’s a lot of variation in the CMIP3 A1B runs).
But running point scale intercomparisons of the sort Koutsoyiannis did tells you little about the validity of the model with respect to the purpose for which it is designed; but does underline the limits of global models for regional climate work.

Controlling chaos. Work I’d like to get back to – one day. Useful in climate? – I doubt it.
Over the last few days I looked at Vostok CO2 and Temperature Proxy data from 410,000 and 160,000 years. Mainly interested in whether it behaves as if there are a couple of simple attractors. At this stage CO2 may show hints (in the 160,000 year sequence it looks like there are three attractors – but this is not easily seen in the longer series), but the temperature data, to my surprise, does not.
Thing is there complex systems and chaotic systems. I suspect that climate is complex more than it is chaotic. (Look at “Complex Science for a Complex World”, Pascal Perez and David Button (eds) ISBN I 920942 39 4; for an alternative approach using agents.)

I think you’re talking about a different type of model altogether. The current generation of AOGCMs seem to run at a few model years per day. Half a million model years is a lot of days.
As for tipping points. I was looking at something – paper? blog? – can’t remember, showing the stepwise decline in arctic sea ice that we’re in the middle of – but several decades away. Dunno if the right behaviour at the wrong time counts as success or failure. Many also show the step changes in the SAM that continue to plague SW WA, getting the timing right.

So, what are you referencing by ‘it’?

The permanent loss of a cold attractor; this is way too long time scale. If nothing else there will always be Milankevich cycles, ocean uptake, and the Urey reaction.

There have been claim and counter claim on submarine pix. is the same pic on creative commons so let’s accept is as is. But so what? I don’t think the summer ice sheet has ever been not a little “moth-eaten” has it?
But think about the energetics. The implication of a “it’s all happened before in our lifetime” approach is surely that somehow in the last 100 years, on one or two occasions, 70% of the sea ice that was present on a previous summer, disappeared, and then reappeared the next summer all without being really noticed – This would leave fingerprints all over the weather. AFAIK in the 1930s (1937??) there was a huge one year reduction in extentpossibly as great as 2007 or 2012 followed by a recovery in the next year. But the sustained and accelerating year to year decline without recovery we are seeing is consistent with the rising water temperatures and new. I don’t expect you to agree; but do understand I have reason for what I think.

The permanent loss of a cold attractor; this is way too long time scale. If nothing else there will always be Milankevich cycles, ocean uptake, and the Urey reaction.

The AGW hypothesis isn’t what YOU say it is — politically and in the public’s eye it is what the main advocates say it is. James Hansen has made the claim, numerious times, that there will be no more ice ages as long as Mankind continues to use fossil fuels. What this blog is all about is preventing the extreme expansion of government power (and, perhaps the throttling of industrial civilization) due to the actions of politically-connected activists like Hansen and Gore, based on unverified guesses about the future. If you happen to agree with Joanne’s goal, then you are arguing on the wrong side.

***********

Re: Climate Models:

I think you’re talking about a different type of model altogether.

You’re right — I’m talking about a model of the climate, not a model of the weather, which is what current GCMs are.

I have a friend who spent 10 years at NCAR developing models of thunderstorms. The goal was to get a model to act like real thunderstorms. This helped determine what the forces are that generate and control actual thunderstorms. Nobody expected that this model could predict the behavior of a real thunderstorm — for one thing, it would be impossible to gather the data necessary to initialize it; for another, if thunderstorm behavior is chaotic, then no amount of data would be enough to allow prediction beyond a short time horizon.

To the extent that GCMs produce “weather-like” behavior, they are valid models of weather. They are no good at predicting weather, however, beyond a few days (as anyone who follows weather forcasts knows).

They (GCMs) are currently incapable of producing climate-like behavior — that is behavior that mimics, without necessarily matching, the past history of the Earth’s climate. GCMs therefore are not even potentially valid models of climate and to expect that they could predict the climate is irrational in the extreme.

There have been claim and counter claim on submarine pix. is the same pic on creative commons so let’s accept is as is.

I was alive when the first submarine surfaced at the North Pole, and I saw the pictures in the newspaper. That some people now try to claim they are bogus simply shows how desperate they are to keep the AGW alarmist lie alive.

But so what? I don’t think the summer ice sheet has ever been not a little “moth-eaten” has it?

Actually, open water has been found at the North Pole in both summer and winter, ever since submarines have been going there (since 1958).

But think about the energetics. The implication of a “it’s all happened before in our lifetime” approach is surely that somehow in the last 100 years, on one or two occasions, 70% of the sea ice that was present on a previous summer, disappeared, and then reappeared the next summer all without being really noticed – This would leave fingerprints all over the weather.

What fingerprints? Show me someone who has successfully determined arctic ice extent from weather data alone.

Why 100 years? The Arctic has been populated for far longer than that, and proxies go back over 50,000 years. You have an anemic definition of “unprecedented”.

But, even for the last 100 years, you are wrong. Here is a report from 1922 of unusual arctic warming and ice loss.

But, for longer than that, the evidence that the current Arctic warming is not unprecedented is overwhelming:

This graph is a section of NOAA’s GISP-2 central Greenland ice core. Whatever else this data shows, it is incontrovertible evidence that current conditions in Greenland are anything but unprecedented. It also explains how the Vikings were able to farm Greenland 1000 years ago, and why their farms are now being dug out of permafrost.

Another fascinating feature of this ice core data is that it clearly shows that Greenland temperatures (and thus probably Arctic temperatures in general) have been, on average, undergoing a steady decline for the last 3,000 years.

I don’t expect you to agree; but do understand I have reason for what I think.

I would certainly agree — if you could demonstrate that your beliefs were rational and based on fact. So far, however, your beliefs seem to be based on cherry-picked and limited time horizon data and ignoring vast amounts of other, longer-term, data that absolutely contradicts the extreme (i.e., political) version of the AGW hypothesis.

Please refer to my FYI to Jo and all about John Christy’s revelation as to which modeling group it was (the ONLY one) that actually mimiced absolute temperature and trajectory this century in CMIP5 for AR4 as plotted in his EPS statement Figure 2.1.

The mob of Warmers Infesting the site at the moment have a very definite method of engagement.

They take any comment and deconstruct it, itemising all the points made or references used.

They then scan through their cue notes for a responses or failing that they go to SkS or the web generally

via Google for references to insert.

They briefly discuss items or make up stories about why they have to put it off for a while: family duties,

work? etc.

They may be Uni students or paid hacks for WWF or WWF executives trying to protect their income, whatever , they are NOT science trained.

One recent reply illustrated the method when he discussed Carl Popper ad nauseum in a way that said he/she did not want to deal with the science directly.

They want to pick apart YOUR GRAMMAR.

They are NOT science trained or if they are they did it like the guy who said he had a physics degree; to keep his mummy happy, not for the science.

There is a difference. Mummies boy resents having been forced to work; the other is searching for the truth.
Up to a point it is instructive to see how much they hold us in contempt because we fail to ” conform”.

Problem is I have seen a lot of good people tied up and wasting energy on this crap well after we have come to see them for who they are.

There is a big difference between wanting to learn and so questioning others and the above Spacer technique which simply involves cut and paste of others comments with SkS dogma inserted as required.

The latter more closely resembles Verbal Diarrhoea and needs to be hidden in a comment nesting set-up such as was used previously for this type of troll.

Well here we are on October 12 at about 8:00 am and my outside temperature sensor is telling me that it’s 7.6 deg. This is in the Illawarra region of NSW. Snow has been reported in Moss Vale as well as around Goulburn and Gunning.

Fly-
MarkD at 56.1.1.4.4 to Nice One after an apparent misread, given Nice One had said,

“No, I posted data from the Argo buoys.”

responded with no moderation what so ever…

So now you are a simple liar:

And Nice One responded appropriately.

I too have been called a liar by people who won’t pause before response.

One standard to rule them all, and from the snarkness blind them?

[I am not prepared to debate this. MarkD is a long-time and valued contributor to this site, as such he has earned the right to a little slack from time to time.
He should probably not have used the term "liar", but if someone is "been economical with the truth," then others have the right to point that out, if they think people are being deceptive.
One of the rules of this site is that people remain polite to each other, irrespective of the heat of the debate. Another rule is that people admit to mistakes when they are wrong. -Fly]

Mark D.
I happens that I think that Nice One is no more pugilistic than anyone else. And not me at all – clearly better informed.
To me, calling a person a liar is a serious matter – pugilistic even.
And Nice One at least brings some vigour to debate.
I re-read that exchange, I can see your point, although I would not have called someone liar on the basis of it. As far as I can see, Levitus et al used ARGO data, and I will accept that until shown otherwise.
I’m not attacking you, you clearly keep to that standards allowed here; I’m asking why Nice One has drawn a moderation comment for a very mild remark when commentary that in other circles could lead to blood shed is passed.
I also do not intend to imply that you lied. You did not. Neither is it obvious to me now, that you misread.
And, apropos of the political topic de jour in Oz, why assume Nice One is “he”?

Jiminy, I appreciate your answer. I think I gave Nice One ample time to agree with what I was asking. A simple “yes it is from Levitus” She did not. This is a method of argument that I (and others here) don’t put up with. I had more to say about Levitus but frankly was convinced that Nice One wouldn’t hear any of it anyway. After I finally got her to say out loud that her links were from Levitus she jumped to the wild comment further down:

Playing the usual “It’s models and they are always wrong” card hey?

says it all. I never said “models are always wrong”. Models however, aren’t empirical data. Levitus is clearly a believer in AGW, apparently looks for and finds it everywhere (in models and “adjusted” data).

BobC provided clear material to discuss, and Nice One waived it off indignantly and frankly, in arrogant pugilistic style. ( I like that word.)

Cohenite actually added links regarding what other researchers think of his Heat anomaly paper. There is plenty to talk about but not if Nice One can’t even admit (realize) that where they are quoting from. Had N.O. backed off and answered my question, we could have actually discussed. Now it seems (on other threads) N.O. is about to implode (as many trolls do) and Joanne Nova is having to deal with his rude aggressive comments. So it’ll probably never happen. I’ve been posting here for almost 3 years and troll cycles like this have happened many times. Sometimes I think it may even be the same person with a new name.

Now as I said, I appreciate your reply. If you stick around here long enough, you’ll see that we actually do have discussions. I see you are doing so with BobC above. What you have posted there (on chaotic systems) is interesting to me. I’ll bet that BobC responds too. I don’t mind people disagreeing, as long as they actually answer questions posed and engage in debate. Trolls can’t and/or won’t, eventually implode in a tirade of Authority arguments. Skeptics are usually not too impressed by Argument from Authority.

PS I don’t assume that Nice One is a “he”, it’s just less typing to use he. It could be said that the pugilistic style and aggressive tone are indicators of the presence of testosterone………

(Nice one is now in moderation because of the persons commenting behavior) CTS

The average global temperature across land and ocean surfaces during September was 0.67°C (1.21°F) above the long-term 20th century average. This temperature ties with 2005 as the record warmest September in the 133-year period of record.

I guess September is only one month, but even still, the graph you use in your handbook would now look like this, (with the period you highlight also trended).

Poor Mark. Incapable of rebutting the peer-reviewed research that was contined within the SS links, you instead resort to the usual.

James, only biased warmists point to “Craptical Science” as a neutral unbiased scientific source for anything. Cook has (in my opinion) sold his soul when you look at what has been going on behind the scenes with loyal SkS followers. Cook appears to be working closely with Lewandowsky so no wonder that you are here after Jo Nova has skewered Lew for some of his “work”.

I’m not interested in Cook, just as I’m not really interested in Nova’s past circus history. I’m interested in the links to peer-reviewed research that is listed, for our convenience, in topics well organised to rebut common climate “skeptical” myths.

For that it’s great!

I refuse to look at SkS links EVER

And when I individually listed direct links to the papers that show man-made, not natural forcings, are responsible for the current warming, you still fail to reply.

Choice of Data Source is relevant only if you’re looking to cherry pick – all show about the same amount of warming.

You can prove that the world has never warmed naturally at the same rate or greater before? And of course, warmista would never, ever cherry pick would they, James?

As others have already stated, we know it became warmer from 1980-1995 but attributing that to AGW because you can’t think of anything else is at the lower level of voodoo science. An argument from ignorance if ever there was one.

Just tell us all one thing, James. What evidence would it take for you to accept that AGW is a crock? Apart from saying that we need to keep waiting and turning our countries into something resembling Zimbabwe.

1. The heat is accumulating in the ocean
2. Satellites show the planet is gaining heat. Basic physics – of course a hotter body emits more radiation. Nova’s argument is confirming that the planet is warming.
3. The hot spot is not a core component of modelling. Then evidence for it’s existance is inconclusive.
4. Clouds also warm the planet. Still great uncertainty exists. Dessler disagrees with Spencer.
5. The models will never be 100% correct, but they get it even more wrong if GHGs are not included.
6. Idso screwed up and was rebutted decades ago. No science uses his technique.
7. The six studies I listed above suggets otherwise.
8. To evaluate feedbacks you need the planet to arrive at an equilibrium state which takes decades at least.
9. The MWP hasn’t yet been shown to be global or warmer than today. The past is full of things we can’t explain because no one captured the data, that doesn’t mean we are incapable of knowing that GHGs are causing warming today since we now monitor the planet in unprecedented detail.

To be expected. It takes decades (even centuries) for (deep) oceanic heat transport to manifest at the surface so we see a combination of short-term heat manifestation as a result of the 11 yr solar cycle and longer-term variation. See:-

And I repeat that simply ignoring my question stamps you as a believer unwilling to subject your belief to any real testing. Like any number of “believers” who have blown through in the past, all you can do is drone on about “consensus” and “peer-reviewed” (as if by God).

Any lingering doubts I had about AGW were completely blown away with the release of the CRU emails. How your favoured “scientists” behaved is utterly unscientific and reprehensible. Bang on all you like about “stolen” and “hacked”, the reality is, the message is out there. The “high priests” of AGW will do anything to advance the “cause” (their word).
Your citing of a bunch of natural phenomena as proof of unending warming simply doesn’t cut it. We know the world has warmed and cooled in the past, sometimes far more dramatically than any oscillations in recent history and all that without a coal-fired power station or SUV in evidence. You haven’t gone anywhere near to disproving the null because there’s nowhere near enough detailed evidence about the past. For this you want to turn Australia into another Spain?

I didn’t ignore your question. I pointed out that the world could well have seen these temps/rates before (in fact go back millions of years and it probably did, along with quite a few extinctions), but we’re arguing about the warming today.

Any lingering doubts I had about AGW were completely blown away with the release of the CRU emails

No, I’m not talking about rocks falling from outer space. Look at an ice proxy record in the last 15k years.

Funny how you lot invoke natural trends when (you think) it suits your argument then ignore them when it doesn’t.

For all your bluster, you still haven’t answered directly what has to happen for you to change your mind. I’ve seen a lot of slink, slither and slide but not much else.
You need to acknowledge that the burden of proof resides with you. A sceptic is not under any obligation to provide an alternative hypothesis, particularly if natural variation supplies all the answers. Meantime, we’ll just continue to kick the foundations out from the bottom of your most precious hypothesis. Most assuredly, it will never assume the status of a theory.

Right, proof based on models. And it would have to be models because anyone with a memory knows that none of them predicted the current temperature standstill. First the stasis was blamed on Chinese aerosols and now short term natural variation. We’ve gone from a predicted warming of 0.2 deg./decade to something like 0.06 and nobody knows whether it will go up or down. Your models failed, James, face it.

Heard of her, James? High profile gal in the climate sciences. Used to have no doubts (like you) about AGW. Confronted with obstinate refusal by nature to comply with climate model predictions/projections, she now has serious doubts and makes it very clear to the ragbag collection of looney warmista that, like it or not, they have a very uncomfortable reality to confront. All they can do is snipe from the sidelines about penny-ante minutia.

Ultimately, you need to realise that this entire AGW scam has less to do with science and much more to do with wealth redistribution on a global scale. If you don’t shiver when you read these words it will only prove that you’re just another socialist prepared to say and do any thing to achieve your objectives.

OTTMAR EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

Dr. Ottmar Edenhofer is the Chair of WGIII of the IPCC.

No doubt all this will be like water off a duck’s back for you at the present time, James. You’ve presented nothing to us here other than the usual “consensus” and “pal review” prattle.

>”…anyone with a memory knows that none of them predicted the current temperature standstill”

Not any more Mark. The Russians have a run in CMIP5 for the upcoming AR5 that did just that. The model is INMCM4.0. You can see it plotted (#27 between RSS and UAH) by John Christy in his EPS statement Figure 2.1 page 19:-

I’m not getting excited yet. John Christy cautions that it might be right for the wrong reasons and I’m inclined to agree. I note that trajectory rises slightly over the next decade or so but there’s no reason in the metrics at present to support that (e.g. SST is in negative phase).

The difference I see immediately is that CAM5 implements an out-sourced radiative transfer module (RTM) from AER but INMCM4.0. doesn’t. That module is rigourously validated against observations BEFORE integration into other GCMs. See RRTMG here:-

The question though is: does CAM5 modify the previously validated RRTMG by “ramping” (an optional initial parameter setting scale of forcing factor) of GHGs say, so that the RTM gets overridden? For all the millions of dollars and supercomputing capability NCAR has at their disposal and the TeraBytes of output they generated for CMIP5, they were unable to match the Russian effort.

If INMCM4.0 has a point-of-difference that explains it’s lower climate sensitivity to all the other AR5 models it will be in the treatment of radiation and heat emission I’m convinced. Over the next few days (probably weeks) I’ll be reading through the relevant parts of the model description and the external references to gas characteristics to see if there’s any clues

Re:-

It’s a shame that Global Climate Modelling has been caught up in the Global Warming via CO2 thing because the model described is of great interest and value just on its own even without the millstone of CO2 having to be carried along with it.

I agree but we wouldn’t have the international scope and scale of these models if it wasn’t for CO2-centric policies pumping money into the industry (yes it’s an industry now). Thing is, when you look at the INMCM4.0 description, CO2 tends to fade into insignificance beside water vapour for example in 5.2 Heat emission, let alone all the other dynamics e.g. ENSO.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah. More tripe from a physics student who rewrites his site in order to ‘educate the public’ as he puts it.

Who do you think I’m going to believe, James. You and a physics student or Professor Judith Curry? She used to be fully committed to AGW but now admits to doubts. But then, you’re so much smarter than her, aren’t you James?

An incorrect model getting 70% right is still better than your position of “I’ve no friggen idea why temperatures are rising whilst all natural known causes can be ruled out.”

That’s about the stupidest thing I’ve seen in a long time. A pure argument from ignorance. Noticed how some in the IPCC are finally beginning to acknowledge the part of the big hot shiny thing in the sky? No? thought not.

Re Conspiracies. It’s hardly a conspiracy if statements are made in a public domain. These characters are quite open about their objectives. It’s only dupes like you who refuse to see it.

Whether you acknowledge it or not, much smarter people than you or me consider that we are in a temperature stasis right now and have been for the last 15 years despite the desperate statistical gymnastics to the contrary. Noticed how some are now trying to move the goal posts for statistical significance from 15 to 17 years? I suppose when we get to the point of 17 years the posts will be shifted to 20 years. That’s the sort of thing you support isn’t it James?

Hi James, Foster and Rahmstorf are the sources of the science, not me.

Curry doesn’t reject Foster and Rahmstorf because Curry isn’t looking at the Ocean Heat Content now that it shows warming. Funny how “skeptics” were all over it a few years back.

It’s a conspiracy if you think scientists are forcing the Artcic ice to melt, glaciers to melt, animals/plants to migrate polewards and to higher latitudes, satelites be modified to show greater retained radiation, sea levels rising, ocean heat content increase.

I support whatever the evidence finds. If China spiits out more aerosols than anyone thought they would and the planet cools because of that – so be it. If the sun continues to be in a longer solar minimum than the usual 11 year cycles and that causes negative forcing – so be it.

>”Curry isn’t looking at the Ocean Heat Content now that it shows warming. Funny how “skeptics” were all over it a few years back”

Curry (October 17, 2012):-

The highest quality evidence directly supporting P1 is ocean heat content and Arctic sea ice, although the utility of this evidence in support of P1 is associated with quality issues, confounding factors, and short length of record

Given that we are in the cool phase of the PDO and a strong El Nino is unlikely for the next decade, the plateau may continue for at least another decade. Latif has made this argument, whereas most other ‘establishment’ scientists seem either puzzled by the pause or don’t expect it to continue beyond the expected 15-17 year period.
.And if the PDO and solar factors are sufficient in strength to counter the anthropogenic warming, then we need to ask the question as to how much of the warming in the 1980′s and 1990′s were ‘juiced’ by the warm PDO and transition from cool to warm AMO, plus a solar max.
.
With the IPCC focus on anthropogenic forcing, these other issues have received insufficient scrutiny. The main ‘war’ with skeptics is over detection and attribution. The skeptics have raised some valid issues (notably the PDO/AMO and solar); I hope that the ‘pause’ will stimulate some systematic reconsideration of attribution arguments.

Now we all know you’re desperate, citing Arctic ice. Read what’s happening there now for heaven’s sake. Also what’s been happening at the Antarctic for a very long time.

What’s next? Oh, glaciers melting, of course. Haven’t heard about all the ‘grey literature’ which your noble IPCC accepts as ‘peer-reviewed’ huh? Similarly, migrating animals and birds. Got anything worth reading on that which doesn’t come from the WWF?

Seas have been rising since the end of the last Ice Age and if anything have stabilised. Just like the temperature which Judith Curry has been discussing at her blog recently, not the deflection which you attempted.

Speaking of which, you should visit Judith’s blog, James. There’s a commenter (Bart R) just like you, a recidivist bedwetter.

Why not go find yourself a cave, James. Just think, no electricity, no wifi, no mod-cons at all. The good news. You will have the satisfaction of knowing that you aren’t contributing to all the doom and gloom which you insist awaits us all. The better news will be that all of us here will be spared your endless bleatings of said doom and gloom.

I find this whole line of blather rather amusing.
Back in August the entire sea-ice bait and switch line was anticipated and demolished.. See comment 2. And a couple of months alter … lo … this thread. and the above plonk.

Warming in all sources of evidence is “debatable”, but you can’t just exclude it because it doesn’t show the results you want. Bob showing that methods are changing over time is a bit of a yawn. Of course methods of analysis data will change and I hope it continues to improve. Heck, I’d be worried if it stagnated. But the end result is, they all show long term warming – before and after.

As for your other web-blog science. Toying with a set of inputs and coeffients in order to to have high correlation is different to actually having a physical basis for the correlation. The author of that theory needs to explain why greenhouse gases and aerosols have suddenly lost their molecular properties and no longer impact the climate.

Your PDF of Wild 2012 seems to differ from your own ideas. He shows that LW radiation from GHG HAS also increased.

The fade of global dimming in the 1980s had major consequences for climate change, as it enabled the greenhouse effect to become finally visible at its full dimension (Wild et al. 2007). Surface temperature rise accelerated over recent decades when the damping effect of global dimming was no longer present.

>”Your PDF of Wild 2012 seems to differ from your own ideas. He shows that LW radiation from GHG HAS also increased>

On average (about a quarter -ve sign last 18 years – explain that please) and the average (2 W/m2/decade) is less than solar (2.7W/m2/decade but also 5.8 W/m2 notice). Worse, the magnitude of the average DLR rise is 4.25 times greater than CO2 forcing and 10 times greater than aCO2 forcing so there are far greater consistent (no -ve sign) forcings in operation than CO2/aCO2 e.g. the constant ~3 Wm-2 per decade solar increase which is an ocean heating agent but CO2 is not in the DLR spectral range (4 – 16+ microns):-

During dimming (1950s–80s) the decline in surface solar radiation (SSR) may have outweighed increasing atmospheric downwelling thermal radiation (LW) from enhanced greenhouse gases and effectively counteracted global warming, causing only little increase in surface thermal emission (LW). The resulting reduction in radiative energy at Earth’s surface may have attenuated evaporation and its energy equivalent, the latent heat flux (LH), leading to a slowdown of the water cycle. (right) With the transition from dimming to brightening (1980s–2000s), the enhanced greenhouse effect has no longer been masked, causing more rapid warming, stronger evaporation/LH, and an intensification of the water cycle.

Who to trust, peer-reviewed science or a blogger.

“the energy flow is solar=>ocean=>atmosphere.” and back to surface somehow – you missed that bit.

>”Blog style attempts to replace GHG with ocean cycles do not impress”

It all went straight over your head didn’t it James? The ocean cycles are the transport mechanisms of heat from solar activity which the ocean releases on different timescales, hence the long-term Temperature-PDO+AMO+Sunspot integral correlation. GHG forcing (when actually quantified whether validly or invalidly by the IPCC expression) turns out to be a non-player compared to solar forcing.

Wild also states : “The observed SSR variations therefore have to originate from alterations in the transparency of the atmosphere, which depends on the presence of clouds, aerosols, and radiatively active gases (e.g., Kvalevag and Myhre 2007; Kim and Ramanathan 2008).”

No I didn’t miss that bit. Energy also radiates to space from both surface and atmosphere so not all energy returns “back to surface”. What does return has no heating effect on the ocean because LWIR penetration is only 10 microns and intensity/energy-per-photon is insufficient.

I note Wild has contradicted himself since 2007 by coming out with solar forcing (2.7 W/m2/decade) that trounces CO2 (0.26 W/m2/decade) by 10x (I forgot to convert to per decade in previous calc) and aCO2 by 27x in the 2012 paper.

That must be embarrassing..

>”No mention of ocean cycles there either”

The cycles have nothing to do with it. Wild is saying (as do many others) that if there is less cloud there is more insolation to heat the ocean – that’s a no-brainer. See Figures 2.2 and 2.5 observed cloudiness in this paper:-

What I mean here is that the ocean cycles are independent of the initial insolation/cloudiness/albedo mechanism that Wild is talking about.

Obviously the ocean cycles then transport heat subsequently so that there is immediate and long-term output to atmosphere that shows up in temperature series with long-term (150+ years) Temp/PDO+AMO+Sunspot integral correlation 0.96. In the short-term 1980 – late 1990s cloudiness declined allowing more insolation and therefore warming to ocean and subsequently atmosphere.

Funny how you presented Wild 2012 as evidence of solar warming, now you try to discredit. Ha!

Typical of a “skeptic” – “oh look I found an error in the work of someone who spends his life studying this topic, and it’s an 10x magnitude error!!!”. But it’s you who made the mistake, your statement “CO2 (0.26 W/m2/decade” is incorrect. See page 37 – http://www.gewex.org/BSRN/BSRN-12_presentations/Wild_FriM.pdf – “+2.0 Wm-2dec-1″

That must be embarrassing … Do you want some “sideburn bacon” to go with your eggs?

“The cycles have nothing to do with it.” – but moments ago you were saying the whole surface temperature could be explained using this and solar changes. More contradictions!!! You jump around all over the place – I suspect you google for any random piece which might help your “blog science” – despite, as is the case with Wild 2012, it didn’t help your cause at all.

Please counter these studies with other peer-reviewed science. Not some do-it-yourselfer self-proclaimed expert [snip] claiming they have overthrown decades of science.
[Stop the "Nutter" insult. I'm going back to remove it from all of your previous posts.] ED

No I haven’t made a mistake, you obviously don’t know the components that make up DLR – Co2 is just one of them and a minor one at that. You CANNOT say ALL DLR is from CO2. There is also clouds (liqid) and water vapour (gas) plus other GHGs (Philliponi et al even correct for air temperature).

Of that “+2.0 Wm-2dec-1″ DLR, CO2 only accounts for 0.26 W/m2/decade using the IPCC forcing expression i.e. there is a i.74 W/m2 unreconciled (unidentified) forcing present (and please don’t tell me all that is the WV feedback from CO2. About a quarter of that “+2.0 Wm-2dec-1″ AVERAGE is -ve sign – you still haven’t explained that in CO2-centric terms.

Apart from all all that, there’s still the 2.7 W/m2 solar forcing for you to contend with.

Hatzianastassiou et al looks to be the more comprehensive study and concurs with Wild et al that there was pre-2000 brightening and post 2000 brightening in some regions too e.g Europe and North America. But is contrary on the post 2000 global average (by a wide margin).

In any case, CO2 gets left out in the cold with cloud level forcing predominating post 2000.

It is certainly well named because a ‘star’ it certainly is NOT! Very amateur hour.

The author/s and the handful or readers are probably in the category of those who believe periods of constant solar energy which coincide with periods of rising global average temperature is proof there is no sensitivity between the solar activity and global average temperature. On that same basis they would also think that a pot of water could NOT be heated from a constant burner, you would need to gradually increase the burner under the pot!

They make a big deal that Jo Nova uses a headline “Man Made Global Warming Disproved” but then ‘admits’ that atmospheric CO2 does have a warming effect. Which is pretty childish since the UNIPCC has chosen to define Man Made Global warming as something which will cause dangerous and potentially irreversible climate change and it is clear to the reader of the article that is what Nova is addressing.

I don’t know what ‘itsnotnova’ hopes to achieve, maybe it will have a following of some impressionable soft science undergraduates but it adds nothing of value to the debate, not even as an effective devils advocate to this blog site. I certainly won’t be wasting my time visiting there again.

But assuming PMOD is valid, there’s a slow response lag via the oceanic heat sink (over a century of solar energy stored there BTW) that wouldn’t be evident for over a decade anyway (Scafetta 2009). Demands for an instantaneous response are ignorant of that thermal characteristic.

>”yet the heat continued to rise”

Then it stopped rising in the 21st century. SH SST has been cooling since about 2002:-

tem·per·a·ture Pronunciation (tmpr–chr, -chr, tmpr-)
n.
1.
a. The degree of hotness or coldness of a body or environment.
b. A measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles in a sample of matter, expressed in terms of units or degrees designated on a standard scale.

Ocean energy transfers to the atmosphere and space via the surface with about a 1 year lag between SST and GAT i.e. the ocean is a leading indicator of atm temperature in any timeframe. The greatest surface area of ocean is in the SH and as per the plot it’s cooling. Also the PDO is in cold mode and Pacific basin-wide warm water volume (WWV) is consistent with the SH SST plot:-

The AMO (a North Atlantic index) is in warm mode and enough to pull global SST up for a few years yet but the SH ocean (Pacific in particular) is the greater heat sink and will predominate eventually i.e. no “cherry picking”, just reality.

>”The Argo floats continue to show warmth building in the ocean”

Actually they don’t, Josh Wilis’ “adjusted” series does (he throws out floats that are “impossibly cold” in his opinion). UKMO EN3 does not exhibit the same increase as NOAA. Besides, it’s a solar mechanism anyway. Not even the IPCC has come up with an anthro ocean heating mechanism (I challenge you to quote it if you think they have Nice One).

The planet is still warming and all you do is say it’s “adjustments” but you never clarify or give further detail. Please be specific and provide citation otherwise it seems like you are just clutching at straws.

The data says the heat is there. It’s up to you to find credible reason for us to throw it out.

The planet’s deep oceans at times may absorb enough heat to flatten the rate of global warming for periods of as long as a decade even in the midst of longer-term warming, according to a new analysis led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).

>”Please be specific and provide citation otherwise it seems like you are just clutching at straws”

Sure (since you’re unable to do so):-

“Formal attribution studies now suggest that it is likely that anthropogenic forcing has contributed to the observed warming of the upper several hundred metres of the global ocean during the latter half of the 20th century {5.2, 9.5} ”

So it’s only a suggestion and it’s only “likely”. No mechanism is found at 5.2 and 9.5 because there is no anthro ocean heating mechanism (LWIR is an ineffective heating agent), it is solar-sourced heating.

>”The data says the heat is there”

We all know the heat is there Nice One, it has accumulated in the ocean since solar grand minimum levels but now we’ve gone past grand maximum the process goes into reverse.

Of course, the oceans are not warming uniformly. Refer to Figure 5. The trends for the North Pacific and the Southern Oceans are basically flat. The only two ocean basins with major increases in OHC during the ARGO era are the South Atlantic and the Indian Oceans, while the North Atlantic, Arctic, and South Pacific Oceans show significant declines in OHC.

I just wanted to make an observation of this generations approach to science vs Galileo era.
In Galileo era there was more real time physical observation to come to a conclusion, this era of scientists are very reliant on computer modelling and computer predictions, is this not putting them on a trajectory for errors ?
If they are not observing more the physical real world in real time ?

I notice Nova doesn’t disclose all of her donations. I wonder if the tax office considers this to be an occupation? Probably doesn’t break the tax-free threshold anyway.

As for Sourcewatch funding – I frankly don’t give a hoot.

As I said before, the science at CO2Science is crap, They may cite peer-reviewed science, but they draw their own conclusions which differe from that of the peer reviewed papers. That’s just crap IMO, regardless of who paid them.

[Aw lets review the tape shall we? It was you that was on a witch hunt wasn't it? Oh and you claim to not give a hoot about Sourcewatch funding but yet question skeptic funding sources? Hypocrite much?] ED

[Aw lets review the tape shall we? It was you that was on a witch hunt wasn't it? Oh and you claim to not give a hoot about Sourcewatch funding but yet question skeptic funding sources? Hypocrite much?] ED

You didn’t rewind far enough.

iknownothing says:

Dont know who funded this research whether it was the UN or govts or banks, which would be a concern.

T’was not I that questioned the funding. I provided the answer, and I went on to say that the funding was not as important as the research, but that the research was poor. CO2Science’s citing of peer-reviewed research does not automatically make their research peer-reviewed.

That’s the main issue I have with them.

[Again you don't say anything bad about Sourcewatch even though you seem to have a problem with their funding.] ED

We are still waiting for you to support your theory that the ocean, from 2,000m to 700m is being warmed from below. It would seem strange given tha the ocean is warmer at the top and cooler towards the 2,000m (even though both are warming), but I will be convinced by you when you present the evidence.

Mrs Nice, who is “we”? (Who are you? Still not confident enough to name yourself? Sorry to hear that.)

Sure look, you might be right, lets use your “colder water at the bottom” logic. CO2 at 10,000m above the Earth is at what — minus 60C? And your theory is that it’s more likely to be heating the ocean from 700m – 2000m down (but not the layer above that). Right? Me, I’m thinking of hydrothermal vents at 400C (average depth 2100m), not to mention black smokers, chimneys, warm diffusing undersea ridges, and I wonder if they increased their activity by 0.01% whether they might affect the water directly around them?

FYI Jo, I too get vilified for mentioning sea-floor sources of energy and the fact that they are not included in the models except for the geo-flux. Said vilifiers include Rob Painting from John Cool’s Skeptical Science (and Hot Topic), Mike Palin from Otago University (and Hot Topic), Rob Taylor, Bill et al at Gareth Renowden’s Hot Topic. They invariably misrepresent me by saying I am referring to “magical” “undetectable” “undersea volcanoes” – I’m not.

And remember Jo, my 3 Part ‘Anthropogenic Ocean Warming?’ series I sent you is particularly relevant in terms of the respective views of the IPCC (AR5 SOD), Stefan Rahmstorf, Andreas Scmittner, and Dana Nuccitelli vs Rob Painting at Skeptical Science. Links again:-

The actual physical mechanisms advanced by the IPCC, Rahmstorf, Schmittner and Skeptical Science are problematic to say the least and note the IPCC do not make an anthropogenic attribution to 0-2000m (only to 0-700m) and only for the 20th century (not for the 21st century).

I also draw your attention to the comments in the CCG thread investigating the “funneling” phenomenon (heat being taken down below 700m vertically in small localised areas in some seasonal conditions). There’s a link to an observational study and to the 2 part SkS series by Rob Painting highlighting the Meehl et al model-based study that suggests this is a HUGE phenomenon occurring in the ocean gyres explaining 700-2000m warming.

I would point out to Nice one that the sea-floor seismic heating we are pointing to (some geo-physics papers on this) is IN ADDITION TO propagation from the 0-700m layer via conduction and currents. Also that 700-2000m warming in the planet’s largest ocean (the Pacific) represents only 1% of total ocean warming, the total ocean warming being now largely restricted to the Indian Ocean – 70% 0-700m, 12% 700-2000m, 82% of total last 7 yrs (see Part 2 above).

Mrs Nice, who is “we”? (Who are you? Still not confident enough to name yourself? Sorry to hear that.)

Yeah, I’m not really wanting the attention of the type of men you attract on this forum. Thanks for understanding. You’re such a sweetie!

CO2 at 10,000m above the Earth is at what – minus 60C? And your theory is that it’s more likely to be heating the ocean from 700m – 2000m down (but not the layer above that). Right?

[See how the terms change. I talk about things being "more likely" (above) and below Mrs Nice refutes some other point below. Who said anything about it being "solely responsible"? - By these undisciplined arguments do sloppy commenters waste time - Jo]

No I don’t suggest that top layer of the atmosphere is solely responsible for the warming. But the blanket of GHGs that is dispersed throughout the atmosphere does. Let me quote yourself:

The point is that YES, obviously in the real world, blankets keep us warm. Pink batts “lift the temperature of your home in cold weather”. They don’t do it by supplying energy, they do it by blocking energy loss. The cooler item is not supplying a single new joule of energy, but there another mechanism of increasing an objects temperature. It’s called insulation. It’s a reality we all know and use every single day. Why deny it?

Why deny it indeed! The trapping of heat by GHG is not really the point of controversy with AGW. As you know, climate sensitivity is the real area of uncertainty.[Note the above quote was unneccessary, the question about denial a strawman - Jo]

There are several mechanisms for heat transfer in water and I’ve read no science to suggest that magically stops at the 700 meter mark.[Where did I say it stopped at the 700 m mark? - Jo]

Me, I’m thinking of hydrothermal vents at 400C (average depth 2100m), not to mention black smokers, chimneys, warm diffusing undersea ridges, and I wonder if they increased their activity by 0.01% whether they might affect the water directly around them?

I absolutely agree 100% that they will affect the water directly around them, but I very much doubt they affect. That’s vastly different to warming the entire ocean. Do you have any science showing:
- why surface warming would magically stop at 700 meters. [I didn't say it did, I asked why it would not heat the top 700 but then heat the water below? - Jo]
- evidence for increased activity of the vents? (a true skeptic might wonder has it decreased?) [Sure it might be. I hear the water is getting warmer though? Do you have some data on it? I didn't think so. - Jo]
- why it’s occurring now, by coincidence, with increased GHG? [OR why is the top 700 m not increasing now, by un-coincidence with increased GHG? Could it be that GHG's have only a minor effect? Could be. - Jo]
- how the heat is being transferred thousands of kilometres from the source in all directions. [I hear there are ocean currents. - Jo]
- and MOST IMPORTANTLY, the maths to show how an increase in temperature of the vents (a tiny percentage of the ocean floor), converts to the Joules required to warm the mass of the 700-2000 meter layers of water GLOBALLY.[I asked first. You still haven't answered my question on how much the ocean heat content has raised the temperature and whether that was statistically significant given the measurement error 50 years ago. - Jo]

Please answer these questions with science, not speculation.[You want my money, so you go first ok?
You can start any time... - Jo]

But what would I know?

Exactly my point! As I’ve pointed out, there’s much you have no told us and I have good reason to believe it’s because you don’t know.

Not knowing/understanding how heat got to below 700 meters is NOT good reason for ignoring it. That’s not good scientific practice, but then we know you don’t actually practice science.

[Define "ignoring it"... is that where I discuss it openly, consider the proposals and suggest a more reasonable alternative? - Jo]

Best of luck with your theory.

AGW is not my theory. I accept the data and experts that are showing us how the oceans are warming. Whenever I encounter a “so called sceptical” argument – it always turns out to be based on some web blogger science rather than from the expert advice. Such is the case now with your idea of hydrothermal vents causing the warming. There is no evidence to support your case.

[So you still can't find any evidence? Still following your favourite Science-Gods? - Jo]

You say “AGW is not my theory. I accept the data and experts that are showing us how the oceans are warming. Whenever I encounter a “so called sceptical” argument – it always turns out to be based on some web blogger science rather than from the expert advice.”

Science by consensus and authority hey?

Now – I’ve given you this link before and it MAY only be “some web blogger” BUT you still haven’t been able to DISPROVE the web bloggers statements in spite of my numerous requests – have you? If he’s JUST a web blogger should be EASY for one of your obvious superior intelligence to blow him out of the water – so to speak!!

As I’ve also said before – “You’re full of ..it” and you’re still yet to prove me wrong.

Jo – you may like to check the link as well – it’s a brilliant expose of how the earths atmosphere CAN’T dangerously heat the oceans.

- and MOST IMPORTANTLY, the maths to show how an increase in temperature of the vents (a tiny percentage of the ocean floor), converts to the Joules required to warm the mass of the 700-2000 meter layers of water GLOBALLY.

Has it not occurred to you that this is exactly what is required of the IPCC to support their GHG cause and therefore anthropogenic attribution?

But after 25 years it has not been forthcoming has it?

Neither have they deferred to observational studies, it’s only model-based so far. They could for example, look at Shulz, Josey and Verein (2012) that finds for the Southern Ocean that “The observed annual mean net air-sea heat flux is a small net ocean heat loss of −10 Wm−2″. This rules out the IPCC’s “expected” anthropogenic “air-sea flux” (AR5 Chapter 10: Detection and Attribution SOD) causing heat gain in the Southern Ocean so they’ll have to look elsewhere.

There was also the definitive Fairall et al (1996) but they didn’t observe the IPCC’s mechanism either, which begs the question: where exactly in the respective ocean basins is the IPCC’s posited phenomenon actually occurring?

Has it not occurred to you that this is exactly what is required of the IPCC to support their GHG cause and therefore anthropogenic attribution?

Sure. I also find it more feasible that the KNOWN increase in surface temps across the ENTIRE surface of the ocean is responsible rather than an UNKNOWN change of UNKNOWN MAGNITUDE of UNKNOWN SIGN from thermal vents that cover only a relatively small percentage of the ocean floor.

So I infer from that word “sure” that you agree the IPCC (via climate science) has been negligent in their assessments i.e. premature anthropogenic attribution to ocean warming?

I also find it more feasible that the KNOWN increase in surface temps across the ENTIRE surface of the ocean is responsible

But from no thermodynamic calculations at the AO interface? No observational evidence (what there is actually being to the contrary)? That’s a big leap isn’t it?

Nothing whatsoever to do with the 1920 – 2012 solar Grand Maximum and maximum planetary enthalpy occurring at the end of it?

Are you actually suggesting that the accumulated energy in the ocean (in the order of 18×10^22 J over the last 40 yrs or so), returned to the ocean after leaving it but didn’t leave again after returning?

I would be very interested in the scientific rationale for that process.

Just an aside here, you say:-

KNOWN increase in surface temps across the ENTIRE surface of the ocean

SST across the “ENYTIRE surface of the ocean” has been decreasing since about 2002/3:-

Now what if Nice One, that activity just happens to occur in climate-critical regions like the east Pacific or the mid-north Atlantic (as actually happens)? The Atlantic rift being exposed molten magma BTW. You don’t think perhaps that celestial cycles just might have an effect on magma currents (yes just like the ocean, just slower) and that effect translates to changes in sea-floor seismic activity from time to time?

I wonder, do you think the atmosphere controls seismic activity rather than seismic activity having at least some effect in climate-critical regions during say ENSO events (there are geo-physics papers saying exactly that)?

I have email proof that Kevin Trenberth is inclined to think the atmosphere controls seismicity rather than a reverse effect – do you Nice One?

And it hasn’t gone unoticed that you ignore ALL questions, so I’ll state again.

Do you have any science showing:
– why surface warming would magically stop at 700 meters.
– evidence for increased activity of the vents? (a true skeptic might wonder has it decreased?)
– why it’s occurring now, by coincidence, with increased GHG?
– how the heat is being transferred thousands of kilometres from the source in all directions.
– and MOST IMPORTANTLY, the maths to show how an increase in temperature of the vents (a tiny percentage of the ocean floor), converts to the Joules required to warm the mass of the 700-2000 meter layers of water GLOBALLY.

I also find it more feasible that the KNOWN increase in surface temps across the ENTIRE surface of the ocean is responsible

I repeat from my reply to Jo up-thread #87.1.1 (with emphasis):-

I would point out to Nice One that the sea-floor seismic heating we are pointing to (some geo-physics papers on this) is IN ADDITION TO propagation from the 0-700m layer via conduction and currents. Also that 700-2000m warming in the planet’s largest ocean (the Pacific) represents only 1% of total ocean warming, the total ocean warming being now largely restricted to the Indian Ocean – 70% 0-700m, 12% 700-2000m, 82% of total last 7 yrs (see Part 2 above).

The thing is, the heat being lost from the 0-700m layer to below 700m and to the Indian Ocean from both the Pacific and Atlantic is not being replenished from above the surface in any way because 0-700m OHC is falling in both the Pacific and Atlantic. This is inconsistent with rising GHG levels but entirely consistent with the gradual decline in the bicentennial component of solar luminosity since just prior to 1990:-

No, the “sure” was with regard to the statement I quote, not to some extrapolated form you wish to now invent.

I would have thought you would have appended the “sure” to your own comment if that was what it was in regard to. Nevertheless the IPCC has been a bit hasty hasn’t it?

So YOU don’t understand the mechanism, therefore YOU think it can’t be happening.

What mechanism exactly? The IPCC only “expects” the mechanism to be (i.e. they don’t know and haven’t observed it yet) “air-sea fluxes”. But they don’t actually specify whether it is a radiative energy transfer mechanism or a sensible heat transfer mechanism so how can I be clear what they “expect” exactly if they insist on being vague?

BTW, I understand both of those (highly improbable) alternative mechanisms perfectly well (see Part 2: The Improbable IPCC Mechanism’ at #87.1.1)

Cherry picking data samll timeframes wont help YOU understand.

It helps me understand that the IPCC cannot make an anthropogenic attribution to 21st century ocean warming (now at standstill just like the atmosphere has been all this century). They can’t just keep pointing to the 20th century as you do too.

Which as I said is a tiny fraction of the ocean floor.

Not that “tiny” but where it does occur it’s pumping volumes of superheated water in at 2000 – 2500m under massive pressure. Not to mention the exposed molten magma at the rifts. This is IN ADDITION TO solar Grand Maximum forcing from the surface neither of which are adequately modeled in the GCMs – that is our point.

– why surface warming would magically stop at 700 meters.

Spurious. I’ve clarified that in #88.2.2.1.2

– evidence for increased activity of the vents? (a true skeptic might wonder has it decreased?)

Our point is that this is an unknown so how can it be dismissed out-of-hand?

– why it’s occurring now, by coincidence, with increased GHG?

Or why it might be occurring now in coincidence with other solar/celestial/seismic phenomena? The solar decrease explaining 21st century OHC standstill but GHG rise being inconsistent with OHC especially in the Pacific and Atlantic.

– how the heat is being transferred thousands of kilometres from the source in all directions.

Doesn’t have to be (but think about currents). The average of global ARGO floats can be influenced by localized conditions. Same with SLR, just look at the AVISO map. “Global” OHC and SLR is nor consistent globally.

– and MOST IMPORTANTLY, the maths to show how an increase in temperature of the vents (a tiny percentage of the ocean floor), converts to the Joules required to warm the mass of the 700-2000 meter layers of water GLOBALLY.

Well yes, that’s what would be required of the IPCC to support their anthropogenic attribution to 20th century 0-700m warming (that’s now at standstill last 4 years of the 21st century) but nothing forthcoming. And I point out (again) that 700-2000m OHC gain is inconsistent across basins as a proportion of total ocean gain:-

15.6% Atlantic
12% Indian
1% Pacific

82% of ocean warming has been in the Indian Ocean over the last 7 years. How is this an anthropogenic effect?

Or why it might be occurring now in coincidence with other solar/celestial/seismic phenomena? The solar decrease explaining 21st century OHC standstill but GHG rise being inconsistent with OHC especially in the Pacific and Atlantic.

After that you claimed “HOW you will measure the immeasurable”, and I pointed out that the link I already provided was measuring the temperature of the oceans and finding a warming trend. In fact this has been going on for decades. Once again, the data doesn’t support web-blogger science.

@Richard C (NZ), rather than post 5 different times, I hope you don’t mind that I gathered my thoughts first, then posted just the once.

is inconsistent with rising GHG levels but entirely consistent with the gradual decline in the bicentennial component of solar luminosity since just prior to 1990

LOL. So You can’t understand how surface warming from GHG can add heat to the depths, but you’re quite willing to accept surface warming from the sun can add heat to ocean depths – AND you’re willing to cite web-blogger science to support your claim.

In any case, peer-reviewed sciecne to support your position would make a stronger case, and would result in you being less confused by “some person on the internet making a wild guess at what might be causing the warming and creating their own web page that *proves* it”. As Abraham Lincoln once said, “Don’t believe everything you read on the internet”.

Nevertheless the IPCC has been a bit hasty hasn’t it?

Nope. Your assumptions are a bit hasty. Your lack of understanding of how the system works does not automatically mean all others are also similarly afflicted.

What mechanism exactly?

There are many peer-reviewed papers on the topic so I’m (not?) surprised you are unable to learn. An example:

Recent observational surveys have shown significant oceanic bottom-water warming. However, the mechanisms causing such warming remain poorly understood, and their time scales are uncertain. Here, we report computer simulations that reveal a fast teleconnection between changes in the surface air-sea heat flux off the Adélie Coast of Antarctica and the bottom-water warming in the North Pacific. In contrast to conventional estimates of a multicentennial time scale, this link is established over only four decades through the action of internal waves. Changes in the heat content of the deep ocean are thus far more sensitive to the air-sea thermal interchanges than previously considered. Our findings require a reassessment of the role of the Southern Ocean in determining the impact of atmospheric warming on deep oceanic waters.

So modelling of the physics demonstrates that such warming is possible.

Another shows that periods of less surface warming coincide with greater heat being draw into the oceans.

Not that “tiny” … that is our point

Your statement is NOT supported by calculations in a peer-reviewed paper – that is my point. Nova’s back-of-the-envelope figures failed common sense.

Spurious. I’ve clarified that in #88.2.2.1.2

That number doesn’t exist (and they have a habit of changing as entries awaiting moderation appear). A link would work better. And “Spurious” is a word, not an argument.

And I point out (again) that 700-2000m OHC gain is inconsistent across basins as a proportion of total ocean gain:

Which peer-reviewed paper made these conclusions? I sense yet another blogger effort.

I’ll check this but at this stage, the largest ocean has the least gain.

And? Assuming for the moment that the number are correct, that simply suggests the warming is uneven. I’d expect that, given the way heat is transferred and the scarcity of Argo measurements .

This is NOT reason to ignore the 700m-2000m OHC (as Nova does).

Our point is that this is an unknown so how can it be dismissed out-of-hand?

“Martians could be lazer beaming our oceans” is a hypothesis, but one not backed by evidence or peer-reviewed science.

“Hydrothermal vents and solar Grand Maximum” is a hypothesis, but one not backed by evidence or peer-reviewed science.

There is solid evidence that greenhouse gases are warming the planet, and solid evidence showing an increase in heat in the oceans, to 700 meters and below.

Since you quote from GRL above, I assume you see this as a credible publication.
Here is another publication of GRL

This graph is part of the study.
It shows the DEEP ocean (<1000 m)temperatures in the last 108 myears.
Notice that ~83 myears ago the DEEP ocean temperature was ~17K higher than today.
We have been cooling down since then.

Do you believe that CO2 is capable of warming the deep oceans like this?
If yes, do you understand the difference between dry hot air in eg a sauna (100 C) and hot water (also 100 C) and why humans can sit in a sauna but not in boiling water?
If you still think a cold atmosphere can warm a (much) warmer ocean surface (let alone the DEEP oceans), I'm afraid you will believe anything as long as it has the "peer-reviewed" stamp on it.
(and yes, I DO have a plausible explanation for these high temperatures)

@BenAW, I’m not even sure why you replied to my post as you’ve not addressed ANY of the points I have made.

Instead you have made what’s known as a strawman argument. You’ve attacked some science that I didn’t even reference.

You found a paper (not one that I referenced) that contains (according to you) an error and you believe that by discrediting that one, it therefore discredits all other peer-reviewed papers. But you haven’t shown error in the papers I referenced.

I’m well aware that there are many papers in peer-reviewed journals that are incorrect or superseded. Over time the scientific process weeds out bad science. For example take a look at Idso’s climate sensitivity studies – wrong for many reasons, but they too got published. Years later, no one else cites his work or uses his methods, except for himself and web-bloggers clinging to the hope of low sensitivity figure, one the temperature record has already physically passed.

Perhaps next time you could post something relevant to the arguments I have made and suggest why there is real reason for Nova for discard inconvenient data.

If you still think a cold atmosphere can warm a (much) warmer ocean surface (let alone the DEEP oceans),

The rate of temperature change between two bodies is proportional to their temperature difference. A warmer atmosphere and SST reduces the rate that heat leaves the ocean, thus resulting in it being warmer than otherwise.

@BenAW, I’m not even sure why you replied to my post as you’ve not addressed ANY of the points I have made.

I replied because your postings that I found in my mail indicate you (as many others) seem to believe that the sun can warm the deep oceans by heating the surface. This is nonsense. Everything else being equal, warm water has a lower density than cold water and won’t sink into the deep cold oceans.
The sun can only “directly” warm the first 100-200 meters, by conduction a transition layer forms (thermocline), below which there is no solar influence. Only in special cases like high salinity, slighly less cold water can sink into the deeper colder waters.
See eg. Thermocline

Not really, as long as there is a warm(er) surface layer (or ice), the deep oceans have no place to lose energy. So only at high lattitudes can they lose energy to the atmosphere. This explains why the deep oceans on average lost only ~17K in the last ~85 myears (~1K/5 myears).

The reason I referenced the Nature article was just for entertainment. The idea that the rapid thawing of non-existant permafrost will release massive amounts of CO2 that somehow can warm the DEEP oceans seems humoristic to me.
But I agree, it’s just one of the many nonsense articles on climate that get published these days.

the magnitude and timing of the PETM and subsequent hyperthermals can be explained by the orbitally triggered decomposition of soil organic carbon in circum-Arctic and Antarctic terrestrial permafrost.

Notice the use of “permafrost”.
Now go back to the graph in my previous post, and notice that in the period prior to ~34 myears bp there is only a mention of “icecaps on Antarctic interior”
There is no permafrost at all in the period the study covers. Even the science section of Donald Duck would have rejected nonsense like this, but not Nature appearently.

And this is how the “quality” paper The Guardian, surely after extensive fact checking, reported on this study: Guardian article

Hilarious quote:

During the periods studied for the paper, the Earth emerged from an ice age and temperatures rose by about 5 C. That is similar to the temperature rise scientists predict could occur if today’s global warming is not kept in check.

Iso “emerging from an ice age” previous temperatures were ~5 degrees higher compared to the temperatures in the study.

You can’t understand how surface warming from GHG can add heat to the depths,

The IPCC don’t know exactly (they only “expect” “air-sea fluxes” but dont specify what type) how GHGs add heat to the surface let alone add heat to the depths.

you’re quite willing to accept surface warming from the sun can add heat to ocean depths

Of course. Solar radiation is the bulk ocean heating agent. DLR only impinges on the top 10 microns.

peer-reviewed sciecne to support your position would make a stronger case

That’s what we’ve been waiting for from the IPCC (I mean observational, empirical, thermodynamic) for the last 25 years.

Your lack of understanding of how the system works

The system being solar input => planetary enthalpy => output to space. I think I understand this better than most, especially the maximum input, maximum enthalpy part. Climate science isn’t up to speed on this yet but they’re about to get an object lesson very soon (the rest of us have been watching the lesson for about the last decade).

There are many peer-reviewed papers on the topic ….[the aGHG ocean warming mechanism]….An example:

That’s not an example of an AO interface mechanism unfortunately Nice One – try again.

We know heat propagates below 700m by conduction, currents, sea floor hyrovents, sporadic localized funneling episodes etc. That is not news Nice One. The issue is that the upper Pacific and Atlantic have been cooling in the ARGO era as a result of the gradual solar downturn (now escalating rapidly) so obviously there’s no aGHG forcing at the surface of those two oceans.

Your statement is NOT supported by calculations in a peer-reviewed paper – that is my point. Nova’s back-of-the-envelope figures failed common sense.

Who needs a peer-reviewed paper. I (not Jo) got the data direct from NODC. Here it is again:-

Are totally incapable of analyzing publicly available data for yourself? See the link above and do your own calcs.

This is NOT reason to ignore the 700m-2000m OHC (as Nova does).

Nobody is ignoring it, it is simply that there are a number of phenomena to consider, anthropogenic forcing is obviously not one of them given the uneven nature and lack of a credible AO mechanism, the IPCC haven’t got as far as verifying their “expected” mechanism with observations at the surface so it’s inane to attribute deep ocean heating to aGHGs. Besides, as I’ve pointed out several times, the IPCC only makes an anthro attribution to the upper 0-700m and only for the 20th century.

“Hydrothermal vents and solar Grand Maximum” is a hypothesis, but one not backed by evidence or peer-reviewed science.

These are the only two major heat inputs to the oceans along with geo-flux. DLR or Hs from the atmosphere is miniscule in comparison and the anthropogenic component undetectable. Sice the solar Grand Max ended 2012 there’s no longer a driver to push OHC higher in coming decades, hence the OHC “hiatus” (Meehl et al, Balmaseda et al). There would be no “hiatus” if continually rising GHGs were actually an effective ocean heating agent.

There is solid evidence that greenhouse gases are warming the planet

Not in the atmosphere 21st century there isn’t

and solid evidence showing an increase in heat in the oceans, to 700 meters and below.

So what? It’s solar sourced (lagged), circulatory (lagged), and with sea floor contribution. The upper ocean is exhibiting completely different conditions, inconsistent with GHG forcing but consistent with solar.

>”…solar Grand Maximum” is a hypothesis, but one not backed by evidence or peer-reviewed science”

See De Jager and Duhau 2012, Abdussamatov 2012, Scafetta and West, Loehle and Scafetta and Scafetta’s other papers. That’s for starters.

Needless to say, the IPCC are blind to these solar-centric papers, the first two of which look at the all-important quasi-200 yr cycle change of phase kicking in right now 2013 (the IPCC think the 11 yr cycle is important – huh???). But from now on the IPCC will have to sit up and take notice.

BTW, your counter-theory seems to be that solar-sourced energy was introduced to the ocean initially, then it left the ocean uninhibited to the atmosphere (but not to space?), then it returned to the ocean after being redirected by GHGs, but it didn’t leave again as it did before due to some sort of restriction that kicks in second time round, so instead it went down to the deep ocean.

The IPCC don’t know exactly (they only “expect” “air-sea fluxes” but dont specify what type) how GHGs add heat to the surface let alone add heat to the depths.

The IPCC summarise the peer-reviewed papers, and I’ve previously listed several that state the mechanisms. You don’t seem to realise that – or you don’t want to.

DLR only impinges on the top 10 microns.

Heat transfer in water is an unremarkable process. Why exactly do you think heat is not transmitted from the upper 10 microns to the 10 microns below that? Or why do you think the temperature gradient is not affected as described on SS?

That’s what we’ve been waiting for from the IPCC

It’s already there. You’re unwilling to read the peer-reviewed science that already describes the ways that heat is transferred to depths.

The system being solar input => planetary enthalpy => output to space. I think I understand this better than most, especially the maximum input, maximum enthalpy part. Climate science isn’t up to speed on this yet …

Riiight. So when do you publish in a peer-reviewed journal? Or are you releasing your research on twitter?

The issue is that the upper Pacific and Atlantic have been cooling in the ARGO era … Who needs a peer-reviewed paper.

Because as an amateur it’s quite easy to make up some convoluted mixture of bogus theories, mash them together and blog about them in some difficult to follow manner and then claim “Climate Science hasn’t caught up”. When the truth is that you’re a possible lunatic with an overstated opinion of your own skills.

For example, you claim:

700-2000m OHC World gain last 7 yrs 1.967×10^22 J (Oct – Dec data)

The obvious problem is that you’ve selected Oct – Dec data and ignored the rest of it. You’ve not applied any statistical measurement against the physical phenomon that you believe is driving the change. You’ve not shown why this situation cannot exist from GHG forcing.

You won’t get the theory you describe publish in any scientific journal, simply because it fails to mathematically demonstrate the conclusion you draw. Your “I think it does” doesn’t give us confidence.

Are [you] totally incapable of analyzing publicly available data for yourself? See the link above and do your own calcs.

Not totally. My genius comes from knowing my limitations and accepting that there are experts that know better than me in their field of expertise.

The onus is on YOU to support your own theory, rather than expect others to prove the opposite is true.

Nobody is ignoring it …

Yes they are. Nova says “The missing heat is not in the ocean”. Nova ignores both the 0-700m AND the 0-2000m Ocean Heat Content data.

These are the only two major heat inputs …

Blah blah blah. Again you repeat crap without being able to support it with science.

Not in the atmosphere 21st century there isn’t

So which do you dispute, that CO2 levels have risen or that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

BTW, Balmaseda, Trenberth and Källén have done a very poor job

The links you give here directing me to posts where you repeat your crap theory, which you’ve STILL not been able to support using peer-reviewed science.

Enough of this crap already!!! Start citing REAL science.

See De Jager and Duhau 2012, Abdussamatov 2012, Scafetta and West, Loehle and Scafetta and Scafetta’s other papers. That’s for starters

I asked for peer-reviewed science to demonstrate support for YOUR theory and this is the first one that jumps to mind? Rather than wild goose chases, provide a link to a specific paper you believe supports your hydrothermal and grand minimum theory.

Needless to say, the IPCC are blind to these solar-centric papers

No they list may solar related papers.

BTW, your counter-theory …

Again, it’s not my theory. It’s a theory that has the support of 97% of climate scientists and they don’t describe it as you do.

My grudge is that Nova claims the planet is not warming, but in order to do that she is ignoring all Ocean Heat Content data. Nova claims its hydrothermal vents, you want to add solar grand minimums to the mix, neither of you have the science to support your claims.

By contrast, we know GHG trap heat, we know the oceans are warming, we know several mechanisms by which surface heat can be transferred downwards and the data shows that it is.

The IPCC summarise the peer-reviewed papers, and I’ve previously listed several that state the mechanisms. You don’t seem to realise that – or you don’t want to.

Hand waving, and your paper was NOT an AO interface mechanism. What mechanism SPECIFICALLY does the IPCC present for AO interface transfer? Here’s what they say in AR5 Chapter 5 SOD:-

“Air-sea fluxes are the primary mechanism by which the oceans are expected to respond to externally forced anthropogenic and natural volcanic influences”

But they don’t expand on what exactly the transfer mechanism is at the AO interface. Is it DLR? Hs? Both? And there’s NO observationally-based peer-reviewed literature documenting the effect. The observational papers only find the solar flux is the major input and no other flux is sufficient to create accumulation, in fact egress continues as usual e.g. Fairall et al (1996) and Shulz, Josey and Verein (2012).

Why exactly do you think heat is not transmitted from the upper 10 microns to the 10 microns below that?

Have you any conception of how extremely thin 10 microns is Nice One? What little (low grade DLR) energy impinges will only have an evaporative effect (Hl) – which enhances energy loss from the surface. Solar penetrates metres on the other hand.

Or why do you think the temperature gradient is not affected …..How-Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide-Heats-The-Ocean….as described on SS

Ah, the speculative, not-to-found-in-the-peer-reviewed-literature, Peter Minnett enhanced INSULATION effect. Now you’re contradicting yourself Nice One. You will have to decide which direction of energy flow is actually operating – air -> sea (IPCC), or sea -> air Minnett/SkS.

It’s already there. You’re unwilling to read the peer-reviewed science that already describes the ways that heat is transferred to depths.

Nice One, it’s ridiculous to be pointing to the “depths” if there’s no supporting peer-reviewed science documenting (including observationally) any anthro mechanism at the AO interface. Energy in the “depths” is solar-sourced anyway, just lagged.

Riiight. So when do you publish in a peer-reviewed journal? Or are you releasing your research on twitter?

I don’t need to Nice One. These are the concepts any thermodynamics student studies (including myself years ago). There are piles of definitive texts to refer to and I have a few myself. Besides, Abdussamatov (2012) applies it to the planetary system including calculating planetary inertia.

Because as an amateur it’s quite easy to make up some convoluted mixture of bogus theories, mash them together and blog about them in some difficult to follow manner and then claim “Climate Science hasn’t caught up”. When the truth is that you’re a possible lunatic with an overstated opinion of your own skills.

Now you’re losing it Nice One. It doesn’t take much “skills” to go to the NODC website, access the data, copy/download, plot, do a bit of addition and subtraction etc. Claiming “amateur” just indicates you’re out of your depth.

The obvious problem is that you’ve selected Oct – Dec data and ignored the rest of it.

Oct-Dec is the latest update Nice One. And “the rest” is plotted here:-

You’ve not applied any statistical measurement against the physical phenomon that you believe is driving the change. You’ve not shown why this situation cannot exist from GHG forcing.

There’s no need to invoke GHG forcing or statistics. The energy accumulation has only been measured relatively recently and is in the order of 18×10^22 Joules over the last 40 years or so and the solar output rise accounts for that but the solar explanation actually starts back at 1700:-

Clearly, solar output increased from about 1920-1930 to Grand Max levels 1990, coinciding with the inflexion in SLR, which GHGs can’t explain BTW. The solar explanation also explains 21st standstill/hiatus/plateau in GAT and OHC.

You won’t get the theory you describe publish in any scientific journal,

Already been done – see #94.1.

The onus is on YOU to support your own theory, rather than expect others to prove the opposite is true.

Exactly, the onus is on the IPCC to prove AGW but it’s not going so well in the 21st century (models diverging from reality), and the solar scenario is being proven right now 2013 and will continue to play out as predicted.

Yes they are. Nova says “The missing heat is not in the ocean”.

What she actually says is:-

The heat is missing from oceans

What Jo is referring to is the fact that the models (GISS ModelE in particular) predicted far more heat in the upper ocean than has been observed:-

Not at all, that’s where more heat SHOULD be accruing according to CO2-forced models but it isn’t

AND the 0-2000m Ocean Heat Content data.

Below 700m is irrelevant if the Pacific and Atlantic have been cooling this century. It is impossible therefore to make an anthro attribution to those 2 basins in the 21st century – and the IPCC doesn’t make an attribution for the 21st century BTW, nor does the IPCC make ANY anthro attribution for below 700m.attribution for below 700m.

Blah blah blah. Again you repeat crap without being able to support it with science.

Are you denying that solar and geo are the only 2 major sources of planetary energy Nice One?

So which do you dispute, that CO2 levels have risen or that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

Neither, I was pointing out that there has been no rise in atmospheric TEMPERATURE in the 21st century despite rising CO2.

The links you give here directing me to posts where you repeat your crap theory, which you’ve STILL not been able to support using peer-reviewed science.

Enough of this crap already!!! Start citing REAL science.

The rebuttal to Balmaseda et al is that they have only looked at the aggregate of basin OHC, they have NOT analyzed basin-by-basin so they haven’t advanced anyone’s knowledge except perhaps their own and SKS. Meanwhile anyone with an internet connection and the ability to add and subtract can do a better job in a fraction of the time.

not one that suggests the Grand Minimums are causing the changing ocean temperatures.

I asked for peer-reviewed science to demonstrate support for YOUR theory and this is the first one that jumps to mind?

De Jager and Duhau forecast Dalton Minimum conditions as a result of the solar recesssion based on historic data and cycles. Some similar scenario is now inevitable.I would point out that in the Maunder Minimum, people walked across the frozen Bosphorus to Constantinople. I’m not saying that is necessarily what we have to look forward to but a solar minimum of any kind (already on the way) will cool ocean temperatures no doubt about that. And alredy happening in the upper Pacific and Atlantic.

No they list may solar related papers.

But they only cite those that are CO2-centric. They don’t cite any paper that is contrary to their foregone conclusion.

Rather than wild goose chases, provide a link to a specific paper you believe supports your …… grand minimum theory.

Abdussamatov (2012). See “enthalpy” and “inertia”.

hydrothermal

There are geo-physics papers on this that you can look up yourself but hydrothermal sea-floor energy input is not a “theory” it is fact. What is not known is how much energy is actually input globally (nothing in the models) and the changes that may or may not take place. Until more is known it cannot be neglected.

It’s a theory that has the support of 97% of climate scientists

Yeah right. We know about those “97%” Nice One.

My grudge is that Nova claims the planet is not warming, but in order to do that she is ignoring all Ocean Heat Content data. Nova claims its hydrothermal vents, you want to add solar grand minimums to the mix, neither of you have the science to support your claims.

“It’s probably no coincidence that ever louder scientific opinions warning of an imminent ice period are coming also from Russia. Vladimir Baschkin and Rauf Galiulin have recently recognized the ice age possibility in a study. Both biogeochemists – a discipline that also includes the study of the Earth’s atmosphere – have written a study for the Research Institute Vniigaz of the Gazprom concern, an address of course that cannot be said is free of lobbyists. However, their arguments are underpinned by findings that are gaining more and more acceptance from independent science: solar activity is weakening considerably – to an extent that was last seen several hundred years ago, the Little Ice Age, according to scientists.”

Yes, a list of people who study climate and actively publish research on climate.

Obviously, this is some kind of evil plot on the part of the IPCC to skew their climate information in favour of competence. They’d be much better off basing their information on stuff they could get off internet blogs.

[Thanks for posting at the end of the thread like I asked. Please also refrain from conspiracy theories.] ED

Craig Thomas – Please take the time to study exactly where that 97% figure came from and how big the sample size was. Then you may take the time to find out just how many scientists there are who study climate and do not agree with CAGW alarmism… then you can also find how many peer reviewed papers are out there by the same….

@Richard C (NZ), You claim “there’s NO observationally-based peer-reviewed literature” but a simple google finds hundreds! The process of heat transfer between air and ocean has been studied for decades. The list below is from 50 years ago onwards:

And that’s just some I gathered in a few minutes. There are THOUSANDS more papers I could troll through.

To think the exchange of heat is not studied is absolutely ridiculous!

I don’t need to Nice One. These are the concepts any thermodynamics student studies

I’m afraid you do if you want to be seriously considered in the scientific world. Making convoluted crap up and posting it on the internet and claiming “IT’S RIGHT BECAUSE I SAY SO” doesn’t convince me, perhaps you’ll find others are more gullible.

Now you’re losing it Nice One. It doesn’t take much “skills” to go to the NODC website, access the data, copy/download, plot, do a bit of addition and subtraction etc. Claiming “amateur” just indicates you’re out of your depth.

Are you denying that solar and geo are the only 2 major sources of planetary energy Nice One?

No, I’m asking you to support YOUR theory with peer-reviewed science. Something you are incapable of doing, instead you resort to half-arsed amateur blogger science.

Neither, I was pointing out that there has been no rise in atmospheric TEMPERATURE in the 21st century despite rising CO2.

Another strawman argument. Why would YOU expect there to be a direct relationship over this timescale given the amount of other factors influencing surface temp short term variability?

The statement was “There is solid evidence that greenhouse gases are warming the planet”. The statement was NOT “There is solid evidence that greenhouse gases are warming the planet AND that will overcome all other influences of surface temperatures this century”. Address the argument instead of making up your own one.

Abdussamatov (2012). See “enthalpy” and “inertia”. … There are geo-physics papers on this that you can look up yourself but hydrothermal sea-floor energy input is not a “theory” it is fact. What is not known is how much energy is actually input globally (nothing in the models) and the changes that may or may not take place. Until more is known it cannot be neglected.

This will lead to a drop in temperature in approximately 2014. The increase in albedo and decrease in greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere will result in the additional decrease in absorbed portion of the solar energy and reduced greenhouse effect. The additional drop in temperature exceeding the effect of decreased solar constant can occur as a result of successive feedback effects. A deep bicentennial minimum in solar constant is to be anticipated in 2042 ± 11 and the 19th Little Ice Age (for the last 7500 years) may occur in 2055 ± 11.

Hmmm, some predictions for the future but no “the sun is responsible for the observed ocean warming” AND they also confirm the greenhouse effect. Is this really the best science you have to supposedly support your theory?

“Martians could be zapping the planet with magical laser beams. Until more is known it cannot be neglected.”

Except that we do know about hydrothermal vents, and there is no evidence to show how they could be responsible for the amount of energy entering the oceans.

You claim “there’s NO observationally-based peer-reviewed literature” but a simple google finds hundreds!

Yes and I cited 2 myself. But what I referring to was observationally-based studies that isolate (verify or not) the IPCC’s “expected” anthro AO mechanism and a NET gain when all energy transfers are considered. Those papers don’t exist, the IPCC only cites model-based papers. Shulz, Josey and Verein (2012) find a net loss of -10 W/m2 on average from the Southern Ocean.

‘For starters you’re back to ignoring the 700-2000 meters again.”

No I’m not (peaked 1Q2012) but if the upper Pacific and Atlantic have been cooling this century there can be no anthro attribution this century.

“Secondly, can you explain why amateur Bob gets different results to the experts?”

Simple, the “experts” only looked at the global aggregate, they didn’t do a basin-by-basin analysis that anyone with an internet connection can do.

“I’m asking you to support YOUR theory with peer-reviewed science”

None of the LATEST metrics support CAGW, All (as of right now March 2013) are consistent with the solar explanation. The literature will be written in time Nice One, be patient. Besides, there’s already papers to refer to with predictions to monitor (just like the IPCC’s predictions).

Why would YOU expect there to be a direct relationship over this timescale given the amount of other factors influencing surface temp short term variability?

The IPCC expected it, their models expected it, they were wrong.

Hmmm, some predictions for the future but no “the sun is responsible for the observed ocean warming”

That’s what the entire paper is all about Nice One – planetary enthalpy. That includes ocean heat BTW.

AND they also confirm the greenhouse effect.

Doesn’t confirm it. CO2 (ocean outgassing etc) is an effect, possibly a positive feedback but remember that a positive feedback still acts positively when the initial process reverses. So if CO2 is a positive feedback it will amplify cooling now that the sun is going into recession.

I’m not saying 0-2000m wont rise some more (probably will a little), just that if the upper Pacific/Atlantic layers aren’t gaining there’s not much reason for below 700 to go much higher given the top down nature of ocean heating (neglecting geo source). It’s the Indian Ocean that’s skewing the upper and lower OHC metrics anyway.

But what I referring to was observationally-based studies that isolate (verify or not) the IPCC’s “expected” anthro AO mechanism and a NET gain when all energy transfers are considered.

Good for you – another strawman argument. What I said was that the observations show the oceans are warming, contrary to what Nova claims. Your changing expectations are your own problem.

Note that what you are asking for now differs from your previous post. Your previous comment was “But they don’t expand on what exactly the transfer mechanism is at the AO interface. Is it DLR? Hs? Both? And there’s NO observationally-based peer-reviewed literature documenting the effect.”

If the observations fulfilled your current expectations you’d change them again. You’d split the ocean into smaller chunks and say “see, this little bit over here isn’t warming exactly like (you think) it should”.

The observations show that heat is accumulating in the ocean. The mechanism for transporting it into the ocean is well studied. One recent study shows the warming is accelerating.

But hey, to get back on track, any moment now you’re going to provide us with the peer-reviewed science showing that the observations invalidate AGW … any … minute … OR .. perhaps you’ll just present another strawman argument, another “Richard C (NZ)” expectation.

That’s what the entire paper is all about Nice One – planetary enthalpy. That includes ocean heat BTW.

It’s conclusions are different to your own. I asked for research that support YOUR position. There is no mention of how the heat in the oceans should match the amateur numbers BobC produces.

Doesn’t confirm it. CO2 (ocean outgassing etc) is an effect, possibly a positive feedback but remember that a positive feedback still acts positively when the initial process reverses. So if CO2 is a positive feedback it will amplify cooling now that the sun is going into recession.

Your second statement (which I agree with) contradicts your first one. Acting either as the initial forcing OR as a feedback requires that CO2 is a GHG.

Currently atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing, therefore the forcing of CO2 is also increasing. If CO2 were decreasing, then yes, the warming from CO2 would also be decreasing – but neither of those is occurring.

At standstill last 4 yrs:-

HAHAHAHAHA!!! Taking cherry picking to a new level!! Even then you stuffed up. You needed to cherry pick 3 years! It’s amateur hour all over again!!!

I’m not saying 0-2000m wont rise some more (probably will a little), just that if the upper Pacific/Atlantic layers aren’t gaining there’s not much reason for below 700 to go much higher given the top down nature of ocean heating (neglecting geo source). It’s the Indian Ocean that’s skewing the upper and lower OHC metrics anyway.

Stop repeating yourself and respond to my criticism of your logic (point 5 below). Need I remind you to provide peer-reviewed science to support the idea that we can ignore below 700 for some valid scientific reason, rather than because of your own brand of logic.

INCOVENIENT TRUTHS

You can tell a lot from what a person doesn’t respond to. Here’s the points you failed to reply to.

1. So where’s your adjustments that address the pressure bias problems (as others do)?
2. Thirdly, how is it you go from using 3 months of data, to a whole year of data and still get the same result?
3. Again, stop proving STUPID #numbers. (you didn’t provide a URL to replace the invalid ” #94.1″)
4. I got the wording exactly correct. (do you agree?)
5. Why? Again what magical thing happens at 700m? Why not 50m? 800m? 2,000m? As shown before, there’s many occasions when the upper layer cools and the lower layers warm.
6. Except that we do know about hydrothermal vents, and there is no evidence to show how they could be responsible for the amount of energy entering the oceans.

That’s as far as I’m going with this, the next 1 or 2 years will be make or break for all theories – AGW, solar/ocean cycles, luke-warm, everyone, so there’s no point going round and round on an argument that the actual observed climate will resolve one way or the other very soon.

You still cherry pick 700m, now you have to cherry pick data sources and you wish to ignore error bars.

But even then, using the data above that you have provided, NONE of the years can be used at a start year and obtain a downward or flat linear trend. I plotted each in Excel and ALL of them still had an positive linear trend.

I doubt you even bothered to do this yourself, you probably just eyeballed the data and thought, “yeah close enough”. Not very scientific, Richard C (NZ), but very amateurish!

But thanks for giving me the satisfaction of showing how crap web-blogger science is.

Except that CO2 has no effect above 200ppm …

And to support your case we get more crap blogger science. Where’s the peer-reviewed science to support your claim? Why is it not even the skeptical climate scientists like Lindzen/Spencer support your claim?

You also neglected to answer any of the outstanding list of INCOVENIENT TRUTHS at the end of my previous posts, and I also notice a few more this time around that you neglect to answer. I’ll tally them once more.

1. So where’s your adjustments that address the pressure bias problems (as others do)?
2. Thirdly, how is it you go from using 3 months of data, to a whole year of data and still get the same result?
3. Again, stop proving STUPID #numbers. (you didn’t provide a URL to replace the invalid ” #94.1″)
4. I got the wording exactly correct. (do you agree?)
5. Why? Again what magical thing happens at 700m? Why not 50m? 800m? 2,000m? As shown before, there’s many occasions when the upper layer cools and the lower layers warm.
6. Except that we do know about hydrothermal vents, and there is no evidence to show how they could be responsible for the amount of energy entering the oceans.
7. provide us with the peer-reviewed science showing that the observations invalidate AGW
8. I asked for peer-reviewed science, but all you offer is “just you wait and see”!
9. No they didn’t – please provide a URL to where the IPCC expected it given the now know values for solar, aerosols and ENSO variability.
10. It’s conclusions are different to your own. I asked for research that support YOUR position. There is no mention of how the heat in the oceans should match the amateur numbers BobC produces.

And to support your case we get more crap blogger science. Where’s the peer-reviewed science to support your claim? Why is it not even the skeptical climate scientists like Lindzen/Spencer support your claim?

EVALUATION OF EMISSIVITY CORRELATIONS FOR H20-C02-N2/AIR MIXTURES AND COUPLING WITH SOLUTION METHODS OF THE RADIATIVE TRANSFER EQUATION

3. CORRELATIONS FOR PREDICTING THE TOTAL EMISSIVITY AND ABSORPTIVITY OF COMBUSTION GASES
Emissivity correlations are usually limited to calculations of the CO, and H20 total emissivity. Mathematically, these models appear either in the form of the weighted sum of gray gases model (WSGGM)4-‘5 or in the form of polynomials.‘-3 Existing WSGGM are somewhat less general than the polynomial correlations since coefficients for the WSGGM have to be recalculated for each H20/ CO1 partial pressure ratio. Polynomial correlations such as those of Leckner2 and Modak3 do not feature such shortcomings; they involve many more fitted coefficients (e.g. 48 for each species in Modak’s model) but retain all the generality required to model total emissivity of gas mixtures. Both types of correlations are accurate enough and simple to use in engineering calculations. However, they are often limited to total emissivity calculations in volumes of gas with a mean beam length greater than 1 cm. This section surveys the total emissivity correlations presented in Table 2. Only the models which have been widely applied in CFD modeling of flames and engineering combustion problems are described.

3.2. Polynomial Approximations
The two most well-known and general total emissivity correlations using polynomials are those developed by L.eckne2 and Modak.3 Prior to these publications, Hadvig’ derived polynomial expressions to calculate the total emissivity of HzO-CO2 gas mixtures for pW/pC = 1 and pW/pC = 2. However, in view of the limited range of applicability of this model, it is excluded from the assessment in Section 4.

4. ASSESSMENT OF THE ACCURACY OF SEVERAL TOTAL EMISSIVITY CORRELATIONS (HOMOGENOUS CALCULATIONS)
4.1. Generalities
In this section, the exponential wide band model (EWBM)25,26 is used to provide benchmark data to validate the total emissivity models developed by Johnson6 Leckner,2 Taylor and Foster,’ Modak,3 Smith et a1.,13 Coppale and Vervish14 and Steward and Kocaefe” (see Table 2).

Thanks for copying and pasting. Now cite the page/paragraph that says “CO2 has no effect above 200ppm”. You have once again made your own conclusions which differ from that of the paper. Try again.

You continue to neglect answering the following points.

1. So where’s your adjustments that address the pressure bias problems (as others do)?
2. Thirdly, how is it you go from using 3 months of data, to a whole year of data and still get the same result?
3. Again, stop proving STUPID #numbers. (you didn’t provide a URL to replace the invalid ” #94.1″)
4. I got the wording exactly correct. (do you agree?)
5. Why? Again what magical thing happens at 700m? Why not 50m? 800m? 2,000m? As shown before, there’s many occasions when the upper layer cools and the lower layers warm.
6. Except that we do know about hydrothermal vents, and there is no evidence to show how they could be responsible for the amount of energy entering the oceans.
7. provide us with the peer-reviewed science showing that the observations invalidate AGW
8. I asked for peer-reviewed science, but all you offer is “just you wait and see”!
9. No they didn’t – please provide a URL to where the IPCC expected it given the now know values for solar, aerosols and ENSO variability.
10. It’s conclusions are different to your own. I asked for research that support YOUR position. There is no mention of how the heat in the oceans should match the amateur numbers BobC produces.

Can I assume from your silence on the “10 yrs NODC”, you also conceed defat on that?

1. So where’s your adjustments that address the pressure bias problems (as others do)?
2. Thirdly, how is it you go from using 3 months of data, to a whole year of data and still get the same result?
3. Again, stop proving STUPID #numbers. (you didn’t provide a URL to replace the invalid ” #94.1″)
4. I got the wording exactly correct. (do you agree?)
5. Why? Again what magical thing happens at 700m? Why not 50m? 800m? 2,000m? As shown before, there’s many occasions when the upper layer cools and the lower layers warm.
6. Except that we do know about hydrothermal vents, and there is no evidence to show how they could be responsible for the amount of energy entering the oceans.
7. provide us with the peer-reviewed science showing that the observations invalidate AGW
8. I asked for peer-reviewed science, but all you offer is “just you wait and see”!
9. No they didn’t – please provide a URL to where the IPCC expected it given the now know values for solar, aerosols and ENSO variability.
10. It’s conclusions are different to your own. I asked for research that support YOUR position. There is no mention of how the heat in the oceans should match the amateur numbers BobC produces.

Questions to yours:
1. As others do? Your links or peer reviewed papers please.
2. Thirdly is not the second question.
3. “stop proving STUPID #numbers” not a question.
4. I got the wording exactly correct. (do you agree?) NO.
5. Why? You do not know.
6. responsible for the amount of energy entering the oceans statement
7. observations invalidate AGW look out the window.
8. I asked for peer-reviewed science you have provided no peer reviewed science.
9. No they didn’t Yes I did.
10. I asked for research that support YOUR position. No you didn’t – he asked you.

Nah you just want to waste time by asking nonsense childish questions and I notice you once again avoid answering the one regarding hydrothermal vents.

If you really were interested in properly answering the questions, you would have searched for where I originally asked that question to RichardNZ, and you would have seen where I linked to others that do address the issue.

I won’t be bothering to answer any of your other 9 “questions” until you show a sincere desire to engage rather than troll.

you can start by providing evidence for Jo’s hydrothermal vent hypothesis, or by admitting that such a theory is not supported by evidence.

I’ll provide the answer that Mr. Choo Choo and Trenberth quote:
“The cause of the change is a particular change in winds, especially in the Pacific Ocean where the subtropical trade winds have become noticeably stronger, thereby increasing the subtropical overturning in the ocean and providing a mechanism for heat to be carried down into the ocean,”

Amazing isn’t it that the wind is causing the heat to disappear to 700 meters and below – yet there are no papers to prove this statement. But especially in the Pacific Ocean Nice One – are you still with me one this.

Last chance – answer the question on Biomass increase from hydrothermal vent activity at here; If you cannot answer the question, just say so.

A secondary question relating to the above:

Do you think that deep sea dumping of mining tailings in the Bismark Sea off PNG as authorised by Ross Garnaut from Highland Pacific and Lihir plus river dumping by OkTedi also could contribute to sub 700 meter temperature increase? Tailings average temperature is around 24 deg C and around 14,000 tonnes per day are entering into the Bismark Sea from Mr. Ross Garnaut’s Highland Pacific Ramu Nickel mine. Isn’t Mr. garnaut the originator of the CO2 tax Nice One?